The MPLS WG Archive

[Tony Przygienda <prz@redback.com>]

Bala Rajagopalan wrote:

> Kireeti Kompella wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > > >   draft-rs-optical-bundling-00
> > > >
> > > > Question posed to the MPLS WG last IETF: do we need this, in view
> > > > of draft-kompella-mpls-bundle-02 and the unnumbered TE draft?  As
> > > > yet unresolved.
> > >
> > > I think it will be a good idea to merge all of them into a single
> > > draft.
> >
> > My question at the last IETF MPLS WG was, what does the notion of
> > link group add that cannot be accomplished with plain vanilla link
> > bundles?  If there are N links that are to be bundled into m link
> > groups, what is the advantage of that over just creating m link
> > bundles in the first place?  In fact, the latter is cleaner: If
> > one has m link bundles, one can specifically address (in an ERO)
> > the particular link bundle that one desires; if one has one big
> > bundle with m link groups, one can only address the entire bundle,
> > and the choice of the link group is up to the node containing the
> > bundle.
> >
> >
>
> I think we should consider the entire solution in both cases,
> rather than just the bundling structure. From Yakov's mail, it
> seems like the solution you propose requires:
>
> 1. draft-kompella-mpls-bundling-02.txt  for bundling description
> 2. draft-zinin-flood-opt-00.txt for ospf flooding optimization when
> there are multiple bundles between the same pair of nodes.

Just a factual observation here: this draft has couple of protocol breaking
procedures in it in rev 00 ( I commented to Alex & Mike ) and will need at least another
major rev before being sane. However, conceptually it works and proof of viability
exists as well for it (PNNI did that optimization).

    thanks

    -- tony