[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 03:18:42 -0400
In message 
<[email protected]xxxxxxxxx>
"Mcdysan, David E" writes:
>  
> "Pinning" an LSP to a specific component link was an intended use case
> from the prior draft not in the current list.
>  
> Do need to think more about the means (configuration, signaling) of
> how this could be done. I will draft some text as to why an operator
> would want to do this.
>  
> Dave


I'd like to know why if an operator had N links with identical
characteristics that operator would need to pick a specific link.

If some of those links had different characteristics, then that is
another story.  They should be advertised as different.

The only thing I can think of is an XRO functionality (exclude route
object used to insure disjoint loose paths, see RFC4874).

Curtis


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
> > On Behalf Of Tony Li
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:30 AM
> > To: [email protected]; John E Drake
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: composite link - candidate for respin, maybe
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Curtis,
> > 
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > 
> > Actually, I'm rather into flexibility.  Some LSPs might be 
> > pinned.  Some might not.  
> > 
> > 
> > Tony
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

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