[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 11:27:10 -0700
Tony,

The statement I was responding to seemed to be implying per component  
link advertisements.

The difference between advertising one bundled link with multiple sets  
of parameters or multiple bundled links each with one set of  
parameters doesn't seem so significant.

Thanks,

John

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:59 AM, "Tony Li" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> 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.
>
>
> Because we can gain a great deal of scalability by advertising  
> vectors of
> metrics rather than explicit metrics per link.  So, rather than:
>
>    link 1
>        bandwidth 10gbps
>    link 2
>        bandwidth 40gbps
>    link 3
>        bandwidth 100gbps
>
> We have:
>
>    composite links
>        bandwidth 10, 40, 100
>
> This saves an enormous amount of overhead in TLV encoding.  If we can
> further only vectorize a subset of the metrics for the composite  
> link (e.g.,
> IGP metric and link coloring might be common), we get further scaling
> advantages.  And on top of that, little or no loss of useful  
> information.
>
>
>> See
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-resource-control-bund
>> le/
>
> Perfect, thanks.
>
>
> Tony
>
>
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

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