[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

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

Subject: Re: FW: composite link - candidate for respin, maybe
From: Curtis Villamizar
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:23:53 -0400
In message <[email protected]>
Yong Lucy writes:
>  
> Hi Curtis,
>  
> Snipped:


Thanks for trimming.


> > 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.


Load balance means to put traffic on component links of the composite
link such that the component links are evenly balanced to some
approximation of even.

It is possible to mix hard reservations and soft reservations and do
so on a LAG or CL or multipath or whatever you'd like to call it.

If you want the benefit of statistical multiplexing you have to live
with not having everything done in hard reservations.  Most of this,
but maybe not all can be done with existing protocol bits.  With smart
use of QoS you can have high priority services with enforceable hard
reservations sharing bandwidth with other traffic whose reservations
are soft of "advisory" and statisitcally very likely to be met but not
guarenteed.  The first has an SLA.  The second doesn't and pays much
less but in practice often gets the same service quality.


> Snipped
> > 
> > 
> > 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.


Please explain.  Both kinds but not other kind?


> Snipped,
> > 
> > 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.


Yes it is a requirement that we agreed to in Anahiem.


> snipped
> > > [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. 
>  
> Lucy


Curtis
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

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