> You are missing a few things.
> One is the abilit to move LSP from one component to another. In
> Tony's view that would not be possible because the LSP is nailed to
> one component, not a group with common attributes and a specification
> of maximum dynamic.
Moving a section of an LSP from one path to another does not require link
> Another is the ability to allow an LSP to be load split across a set
> of components. The top LSP may (if signaling indicates this is OK) be
> split among component links. This is the only way to support LSP of
> greater than 100G in the near future.
The discussion was about IGP scaling. Both examples you describe deal with
signaling and could be decoupled from any IGP enhancements that are made.
> > > > 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
> > > > 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
> > > > requirement, let defer the details to later.
> > >
> > > I'm fine with that, but we may also want to specify the component in
> > > ERO.
> > [JD]
> > See
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-resource-
> The functionality I mentioned above is missing.
Then you need to re-phrase your requirement (or re-read the I-D)
> > > > 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.
> > [JD]
> > 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
> Creating every LSP by stitching one hop LSPs together is a very poor
> solution IMO. The requirement though do not specify a solution.
It depends upon how many LSPs need this behavior. LSP Hierarchy would also
work. So the requirement needs to be more precise.
rtgwg mailing list