Hi Colby,
> Specific to "But the current definition addresses the needs of only one > type of traffic”. I fail to see why any application (SR policy, Flex-algo, > LFA, RSVP (p2p and p2mp), detour or facility bypass tunnels, MPTE, …) > can’t use the power-group as currently defined in their respective > optimizations. There are many TE oriented attributes that have been > defined similarly. e.g. SRLGs. Can you elaborate a bit more as to what > specifically you’re looking for here? > Well currently text in the draft says this: The Sleeping bandwidth field carries the sleeping bandwidth on a link, forwarding adjacency [RFC4206], or bundled link. For a link or forwarding adjacency, sleeping bandwidth is defined as the maximum bandwidth [RFC5305] *minus the bandwidth currently allocated to RSVP- TE label switched paths* that was transitioned to power-sleep. So at least definition of sleeping bandwidth seems quite limited to single TE technology. Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
