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
msg09041/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
