[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: composite link - candidate for respin, maybe

Subject: RE: composite link - candidate for respin, maybe
From: John E Drake
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:56:35 -0700
Comments inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtgwg-bounces[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Tony Li
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:38 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: composite link - candidate for respin, maybe
> Hi Curtis,
> > What we don't want to do (IMHO) is completely remove aggregation of
> > the bundle (aka CL) advertisement.  If there are a dozen identical
> > links and four that are differnt there is no need to pick exactly one,
> > just one from either set, or don't care.
> My concern is that down the road, as resources get used, the links will no
> longer be identical.   Each will have its own unique usage levels.  Global
> planning and optimization can use this information to determine exactly
> how
> many LSPs and at what sizes can fit down the link.

Then why bother with link bundling?  This level of control has been part of TE 
since the beginning.  Link bundling was introduced to trade information hiding 
for scalability.

> > If we don't put a bound on the number of sets, in the limit each
> > component could be advertised with the added semantic that there is a
> > sharing option.  In that case the LSP may need to specify the set of
> > "groups" (as I have it above in the absense of a term) that are
> > acceptable.  This could make for a very big ERO.  It should be
> > adequate to indicate in the RRO that the bundle is being used with a
> > field indicating which member was currently in use (if nailed in
> > place).  This is beyond requirements, so if we are OK with the stated
> > requirement, let defer the details to later.
> I'm fine with that, but we may also want to specify the component in the
> ERO.


> > OK.  So what is your objection?  Are you suggesting that we need to
> > restrict the load balance to look down N labels from the top and no
> > further?
> No, I'm suggesting that we need a bit in the RESV to say that this LSP
> should be demuxed by inner labels or kept atomic.

In current link bundling an LSP is either assigned to a specific component link 
or split across all of the component links.  In the latter case this 
effectively means all or a subset of the component links.

If an LSP is assigned to a specific component link, RFC 5150 
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5150/) (a one hop LSP on the assigned 
component link) and MBB can be used to move the LSP non-disruptively to another 
component link  

> > Good to be working with you again.
> Likewise.  While we have a history of disagreeing, I find it far
> preferable
> to disagree intelligently with someone than some of the other discussions
> that I've been having lately.  ;-)
> Tony
> _______________________________________________
> 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>