[mpls] Scalability of the "effective FRR" approach in draft-kini-mpls-ring-frr-facility-backup-00.txt

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Mon, 26 July 2010 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83ABA3A6A69 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.183
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.183 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.415, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p2LAFxU1QTef for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ilptbmg01.ecitele.com (ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com [147.234.242.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2361C3A6407 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DLP_bound_connection ( [147.234.242.234]) by ilptbmg01.ecitele.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id B0.19.32431.06EBD4C4; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:57:04 +0300 (IDT)
X-AuditID: 93eaf2e7-b7c6dae000007eaf-41-4c4dbe609227
Received: from ilptexch01.ecitele.com ( [172.31.244.40]) by ilptbmg01.ecitele.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 80.19.32431.06EBD4C4; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:57:04 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com ([147.234.244.213]) by ilptexch01.ecitele.com ([172.31.244.40]) with mapi; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:57:04 +0300
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: "sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com" <sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:57:21 +0300
Thread-Topic: Scalability of the "effective FRR" approach in draft-kini-mpls-ring-frr-facility-backup-00.txt
Thread-Index: Acss451Rwl5jkjLdTWWmLbBSEMenUA==
Message-ID: <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D5BB4A3ED3@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D5BB4A3ED3ILPTMAIL02eci_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] Scalability of the "effective FRR" approach in draft-kini-mpls-ring-frr-facility-backup-00.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:56:46 -0000

Sriganesh and all,
If I understood you correctly, your proposal requires a dedicated backup tunnel for all LSPs with the given {head-end, tail-end} pair of LSRs in the ring. (Regular facility FRR requires just two backup tunnels).
If this understanding is correct, this looks to like a serious scalability issue with your approach.

Regards,
     Sasha