Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 To: "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: 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" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:56:46 -0000 --_000_A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D5BB4A3ED3ILPTMAIL02eci_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sriganesh and all, If I understood you correctly, your proposal requires a dedicated backup tu= nnel for all LSPs with the given {head-end, tail-end} pair of LSRs in the r= ing. (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 --_000_A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D5BB4A3ED3ILPTMAIL02eci_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sriganesh and all,

If I understood you correctly, your proposal requires a dedicated backup tunnel for all LSPs wi= th 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

--_000_A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D5BB4A3ED3ILPTMAIL02eci_--