Hello Team, Could anybody please clarify my doubt?
Thanks & Regards, Mrinmoy On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 3:22 PM Mrinmoy Das <mrinmoy.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Team, > > I found below highlighted text in RFC 8231: > > *6.2 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8231#section-6.2>. The PCUpd > Message, page- 29* > > > > The PCC SHOULD minimize the traffic interruption and MAY use the > > make-before-break procedures described in [RFC3209 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3209>] in order to > > achieve this goal. If the make-before-break procedures are used, two > > paths will briefly coexist. The PCC MUST send separate PCRpt > > messages for each, identified by the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV. When the > > old path is torn down after the head end switches over the traffic, > > this event MUST be reported by sending a PCRpt message with the > > LSP-IDENTIFIERS-TLV of the old path and the R bit set. The > > SRP-ID-number that the PCC associates with this PCRpt MUST be > > 0x00000000. Thus, a make-before-break operation will typically > > result in at least two PCRpt messages, one for the new path and one > > for the removal of the old path (more messages may be possible if > > intermediate states are reported). > > > So, as per the highlighted text above, *in case of MBB, the 2nd > PCRpt(old path) that is torn down needs to set SRP-ID to 0.* > Does this behavior apply to both RSVP-TE and SR-TE LSP? > > Thanks & Regards, > Mrinmoy >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
