>I may be missing some thing here.
>
>If there are multiple IGP paths and only one of them
>has the bandwidth demanded from the LSP, even if
>without TE-database, we should be able to get there,
>just try them one by one till it finds it.
With most (if not all) implementations, if you lobotomize them by
turning CSPF off, they'll simply signal RSVP-TE towards the egress
according to the RIB, and the reservation will either get all the way
there because it passes admission control at every intermediate node,
or a node will reject it and send back a PATHERR saying why it didn't
pass... which continues every 30 seconds forever until someone fixes
the issue. What you want to do is fine if you're playing around in
the lab, but makes no sense in a production network. Cisco's CLI is
just geared that way. It may change over time, it may not.
>If I want to a static LSP, I can just define the path
>and bandwidth, if it can be accepted or not is another
>story which depends on my estimation of the path
>status. Is that how people calculate LSPs off-line in
>stead of on-line?
There may be other ways for an offline calculation server to get
enough information to make smart decisions (netflow, etc.), but I
believe in general offline calculation would also use IGP-TE. It
could get information from the tunnel ingresses in some fashion, but
how do you think they'd get their information? (here's a hint: IGP-TE)
>I think wether static is useful or not, it should be
>up to the users, I guess that's why we still have
>static and dynamic routing protocols.
Sure, there's enough rope for everyone :-)
Sean
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:40 EDT