On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:11:13 +0859, Masataka Ohta said: > In this thread, as Noel said: > : It's easy to imagine an ATM-like system > : in which circuit ID's are global in scope. > > the circuit ID does not neccessarily imply special routing. If you're not routing based on circuit ID, why are you bothering to have one? > However, you should also be aware that RSVP is virtually useless > without QoS routing. Yes, a protocol to tweak the control of an underlying XYZ is pretty useless if there isn't an XYZ to tweak... You're overlooking the basic distinction between a circuit and RSVP - if something happens along the way to break the previously established circuit, the circuit is *BROKEN*, and nothing moves until it is either re-established or re-negotiated. You might want to re-read RFC2205, section 2.3, and ask yourself what happens to packets in the time between BGP selecting a new route and the next RSVP refresh packet arriving. I don't think it includes "send back an ICMP Host Unreachable even if there's a new route".... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech
Attachment:
pgp00125.pgp
Description: PGP signature