Hi, Pavan. Sorry for the delay in replying. Yes, I meant RFC 2205 in a couple of places where I said RFC
2209. Oops! I had a think about the points below and I believe there may
still be things to be noted. My thoughts are inline below. Elwyn On 06/10/2017 22:23, Vishnu Pavan
Beeram wrote:
I think it would be useful to prospective implementors to have a very short statement either at the end of s1 or as a new section to say that you need to have the Capability Object implemented as this is not necessarily in a basic RSVP implementation or RSVP-TE implementation. Since this draft is about RSVP-TE deployments (RFC 3209) you get Node-Hellos automatically (and the RFC 4558 clarification is mentioned) and doesn't need to be called out explicitly. That sounds fine. What seems to be missing is what should be done if either or both of the two capabilities are active on the peer or some of its LSPs when the Refresh-Reduction-Capable bit is cleared in a message (which I think could be any message from the peer). If I understand correctly it is possible that RI-RSVP might have to be switched off and depending on where the RI-RSVP process had got to in terms of sending repeat PATH messages, it might be necessary to revert to standard refreshing procedures from part way through the revised procedure - I think you probably need to be clear about what you would do in terms of where to enter the default refresh procedure and whether this means the refresh interval should revert to a lower value. I am not sure whether immediately unthrottling the flow control would be desirable either! No. I am not talking about the setup-retry timer. I was thinking about the L value (the local state lifetime) as discussed in Section 3.7 of RFC 2205. This is usually defined in terms of a multiple of the refresh timer - s3 of the draft suggests that the refresh timer be configured to 20 minutes making the L value at least an hour in the default case. This would mean the slower refresh retries would go on for an hour which seems excessive. I suspect you need to specify an alternative algorithm for setting L. This has been addressed in your discussions with Lou.
|