[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: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:23:28 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 9:49 PM
> To: John E Drake
> Cc: Tony Li; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: composite link - candidate for respin, maybe
> In message <[email protected]>
> John E Drake writes:
> >
> > Tony,
> >
> > Clearly there is extra overhead (roughly 2*(N - 1)* 40 bytes?) with N
> > homogeneous bundled links versus one heterogeneous bundled link.  The
> > concern I have is that having heterogeneous bundled links may
> > complicate the data plane packet forwarding.
> How the control plane information is presented does not "complicate
> the data plane packet forwarding".

If we are placing flows on the component links of a heterogeneous link bundle, 
we may have to look at additional fields within packets and/or maintain 
additional state, relative to what is required to place flows on the component 
links of a homogeneous link bundle.  The example that has been given is flows 
that require low latency.

The requirements document needs to be clear as to which fields in the packet 
header are to be used in packet classification.  E.g., do we deal strictly with 
the MPLS header or can the packet header also be used, and if so, do we have to 
deal with encrypted as well as unencrypted packets? 

> > A clear statement as to what we are trying to accomplish wrt IGP
> > scaling by using bundled links would be good.
> Please indicate what in the requirements we are discussing is not
> clear rather than a blacket statement that the goals are not clear.

I was agreeing with Tony, so please direct this question to him.  (But, I don't 
see any real discussion of IGP scaling requirements.)

> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
> Curtis
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

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