Hi Tony, > Because in the case of the wakeup message, it is initiated by the headend.
GoWakeUp is defined in section 4. "Section 4 defines how RSVP-TE carries those procedures *for a directly connected RSVP-TE link.*" Is there any indication in the draft that GoWakeUp will be initiated by the headends ? Kind regards, Robert On Sun, Oct 4, 2026 at 7:35 PM Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > It seems that the complexity why this procedure is proposed lies in > suggestion to exchange those 4 messages: > > > > > *SleepPrepareAck 1 Receiver accepts preparationSleepPrepareNak 2 Receiver > rejects preparation* > > *GoSleep 3 Sender authorizes power-sleepGoSleepAck 4 Receiver confirms > power-sleep* > > In respect to the first reply the draft just says this: > > " If it cannot participate, it continues to be in Operating mode and sends > negative acknowledgement. If it can participate, it sends acknowledgement > and transitions to Ready mode." > > What are the criteria the receiver should use to make the above judgement > ? > > > > That’s a matter of local policy plus whether there are active LSPs on the > link. > > > Also how is this related to timing of flooding "sleep capable" state for a > link in ISIS ? > > > > It is not. All of the IS-IS flooding is not timing sensitive and is all > static information. > > > Should Sender even attempt to send anything to the peer here if there was > no indication in flooding that specific interface of specific power group > is sleep capable ? > > > > Probably not. If the interface is not power-sleep capable, requesting > that it go to sleep is pointless. > > > Or is that flooding to start after SleepPrepare Ack ? Not clear. > > > > Again, the flooding is static information and should happen after a > configuration change. > > > Now what happens after sending GoSleep and never receiving the GoSleepAck > ? > > > > As always, time out and retry. Binary exponential backoff with a ceiling > is your friend. > > > Last but not least ... why for this p2p communication would one use the > RSVP protocol ? Couldn't those indications be instead part of ISIS new > Hello Capabilities Les is proposing ? > > > > Because in the case of the wakeup message, it is initiated by the > headend. This cannot be carried by IS-IS IIH PDUs. > > Cheers, > Tony Li > > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
