From: Joe Chang (changjoe@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Jun 29 2004 - 09:51:52 GMT-3
My understanding is that ATM's PNNI is not a best path routing protocol in
the same sense as RIP or OSPF. So long as the nodes can maintain established
QoS for a VC the switching path will go unchanged. Compare with MPLS which
would make your topology switch back to a shorter path upon recovery of the
direct link.
----- Original Message -----
From: <gladston@br.ibm.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 11:29 AM
Subject: ATM SVC
> Does the LS1010 has the capability to discover that there is a better path
between two points and reroute the call?
>
> This it the topology:
>
> RA------LS1010-1----------------------LS1010-2-----RB
> | |
> | |
> +------------LS1010-3--------+
>
> LS1010-1 can reach LS1010-2 directly or through LS1010-3.
> If the direct path goes down, LS1010-1 constructs the path through
LS1010-3.
> But when the directly path goes up again, the path keep using LS1010-3.
> Is it a limitation of the PNNI?
>
> Thanks for any comments.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 03 2004 - 19:40:52 GMT-3