Re: [CCAMP] MELGs - Q&A

[Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>]

Fatai, Hi!


> ** **
>
> Do you think if it makes sense to add a flag (in routing advertisement) to
> indicate a link is a VL or not?****
>
> **
>

When Virtual TE (VTE) Links are used, it would be useful for a client path
computation element to know if a given VTE link is already committed or
not. This information allows the computing element to show preference to
the committed virtual TE links - and thus avoid unnecessarily instantiating
an uncommitted virtual TE link when you have an equally good available
committed TE link. The "U-Bit" in the MELG construct  is useful in this
regard.

So, to answer your question - If the MELG construct is used as defined in
the draft, I don't see a need to add any other separate flag to indicate if
a link is a Virtual TE Link or not.

-Pavan


> ** **
>
> *From:* Vishnu Pavan Beeram [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 8:57 PM
> *To:* Fatai Zhang
> *Cc:* Igor Bryskin; [e-mail]
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] MELGs - Q&A****
>
>  ** **
>
> Fatai, Hi!****
>
> ** **
>
> Good to see that you understand the construct now.****
>
> ** **
>
> This is not a corner case. The utility of the construct becomes quite
> significant if you have an application that does concurrent path
> computations on an abstract topology.****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> -Pavan****
>