[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: composite link - candidate for respin, maybe

Subject: Re: composite link - candidate for respin, maybe
From: Curtis Villamizar
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:52:33 -0400
In message <C7D6F3A6.9247%[email protected]>
Tony Li writes:
> >> 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.
> Once again: what are the scalability goals that we're trying to achieve,
> both on a per-system and network-wide basis?  This should be a quantitative
> requirement.
> Tony

When BGP specified the implied goal to pack more than one NLRI into a
BGP update there was no need to justify the efficiency improvement
with target size of the global routing table and routing information

We are shooting for very significantly better packing by allowing CL
with very many components to be expressed in a more compact way.

I don't care much about the CL with two components.  Its the one with
many 10s of components that matter.  These exist today.

That is all the justification we need.

If you really insist I'll add the bits for a 30 component CL using the
existing bundling vs as individual links as an example and stick it in
the draft.

rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

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