Re: Re: WGLC completed on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-03

Hi Tony,

I noticed that there is a change of FR#1 between two version draft.
"A composite link CAN be announced in conjunction with detailed parameters 
about its component links, such as bandwidth and latency. The composite 
link SHALL behave as a single IGP adjacency."
I think we may catch the solution from rfc4201 and 
draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-resource-control-bundle-08 for bandwidth.
For latency, thert is a description about it in 
draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-02. There may be two choice .
1. "When the composite link is advertised into IGP, the latency of 
composite link should be the range (e.g., at least minimum and maximum) 
latency value of all component links." - comment from Dave
2. " When the composite link is advertised into IGP, the latency of 
composite link should be the maximum latency value of all component 
links."

Xihua Fu

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> 
发件人:  rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org
2011-02-24 上午 12:18

收件人
Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>
抄送
"rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
主题
Re: WGLC completed on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-03

Hi Lucy,

>> "The solution MUST support an optional means for LSP signaling to bind 
an
>> LSP to a particular component link within a composite link. 
> 
> [LY] The network already supports this solution today, i.e. announce 
each (component) link as an IGP and/or IGP-TE link. Head-end node can use 
ERO to inform the nodes to bind LSP to the (component) link. 

A solution can take that approach to fulfill that requirement, but having 
each component be an individual IGP adjacency works against the 
scalability requirements.

Solutions that make use of IGP aggregation to achieve scalability will 
want to add mechanisms to provide for binding to individual components.

Tony

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg