[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: FW: composite link - candidate for respin, maybe

Subject: RE: FW: composite link - candidate for respin, maybe
From: Yong Lucy
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:58:23 -0500
Hi Curtis,


> The conclusion was that at a midpoint LSR the LSP defines the top link
> but the entire label stack can be used for load balance.
[LY] IMO: We may need to clarify what "load balance" means first. Do you
mean load balance over all component links? If component links have
different metrics, load balancing over all component links may not meet
operation requirements. In addition, load balance is typically referred to
as distributing traffic without BW reservation. In the context of previous
requirement draft, it requires that traffic placement function have BW
reservation capability. Hope other co-author can help clarify on this.

> I don't think we agreed not to include IP if it took very little or no
> effort to include IP relative to LDP.
[LY] In my opinion, the previous requirement draft addresses both kinds of
IP traffic, but not addresses other IP traffic.

> You have that wrong.  In the composite link requirements a LSP can
> have a bandwidth that is greater than any one of the component links.

[LY] This is new to the previous requirement draft. It is OK with me if the
new version has this requirement. I see the merit. Thanks.

> > [LY] Yes. However, what is the flow for composite link in latter case,
> > TE LSP or LDP?
> It doesn't matter how an LSP is set up.  The same techniques that just
> look at the label stack (or optionally past the label stack if the
> payload is IP) work regardless of how the LSPs were set up.
[LY] This also have some new aspect to the previous requirement draft. 


rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

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