> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 4:11 AM
> To: John G. Scudder; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; ZININ Alex
> Subject: RE: Composite Link Requirements as WG document
> Two comments on this document:
> "Unlike a link bundle [RFC4201], the component links in a
> composite link can have different properties such as cost
> or capacity."
> Component link "capacity" heterogeneity is "allowed" in 4201 I can
> understand the potential limitation of identical TE metrics (for each
> component) unfortunately limited explanation are given to sustain why it
> should be addressed.
[LY] Carriers want to bundle component links that do not have the same
capacities (may even have different delays) together as one IGP link in MPLS
network. They have several such applications.
> "This document describes a framework for managing aggregated
> traffic over a composite link."
> "To achieve the better component link utilization and avoid
> component link congestion, the document describes some new
> aspects on the traffic flow assignment to component links."
> The document is specifically dealing to TE control but does not explain
> why "measuring" component link capacity is assumed impossible (cf. 4201
> Section 4) ?
[LY] Measuring component link as whole does not give detail information when
need to move traffic flow from one component link to another in the case
that one component link fails or higher priority flow arrives.
> Bottom-line: not clear if this document is intended to improve
> applicability of bundling TE control in IP/MPLS or if the current
> bundling approach is not fulfilling expected functionality (and this
> document would outline the why/what). The issue is that the document
> describes "modeling" but does not provide an answer to this question.
[LY] I don't see much different between two cases you are giving. RFC4201
can't apply to the situation carrier wants, i.e. bundling component links
that do not have the same capacities (may even have different delays)
together as one IGP link in MPLS network. In fact, RFC4201 only applies to
IGP TE link and RSVP-TE, carriers also need such link bundle as a IGP link
that supports LDP signaled LSPs as well.
[LY] once it becomes WG document, we can further work on the text to make it
clear. We do not make the drafts as a solution drafts. It just describes the
basic composite link framework and requirements.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> > On Behalf Of John G. Scudder
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:08 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]; ZININ Alex
> > Subject: Composite Link Requirements as WG document
> > Folks,
> > At today's meeting we received a request to adopt draft-so-yong-mpls-
> > ctg-requirement-00 as a working group document. There was
> > reasonably
> > strong support in the room for doing so. Please respond to the
> > mailing list with your discussion, support or opposition (please do
> > this even if you did so in person). The deadline for comments is
> > November 30.
> > Note that accepting the document simply means that the working group
> > would begin working on requirements. It does not imply blanket
> > acceptance of the document as it now stands.
> > Thanks,
> > --John
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtgwg mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email protected]
rtgwg mailing list