[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Composite Link Requirements as WG document

Subject: RE: Composite Link Requirements as WG document
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:43 +0100

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.

"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) ?

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. 


> -----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]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>