The MPLS WG Archive

[Bala Rajagopalan <braja@tellium.com>]

Curtis:

Curtis Villamizar wrote:

> In message <39CB7F67.BEC764D4@tellium.com>, Bala Rajagopalan writes:
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > 3. draft-kompella-mpls-unnum-01.txt for specifying component
> > links in ERO

>
> IMHO 2 is not required therefore your more complex bundling scheme
> adds litte or no value.

This is what Yakov said:

> (yakov) Advertising the same LSA over each control channel would be
> fairly unwise thing to do (to say the least). Please look
> at draft-zinin-flood-opt-00.txt on how to avoid doing this.
>
> (Debanjan) I know that it is unwise and that is the point I am trying
to make.
> I am aware of the draft you mention, I was not sure that it was
> also a part of the "bundling drafts" bundle :-)

>(yakov) I guess you are aware of this now :-)

And, I don't see why our proposal is any more "complex". It's different,
I agree. It's not something you prefer, that's also clear (although you
don't
explain the reason very clearly).

>
>
> A single bundle can be applied.  Under what conditions do you see a
> disadvantage to appying a single bundle?

If I can use a link mgmt. protocl for my control channel management and
let the routing protocol see a single interface to the neighbor,
why should there be more than one bundle between neighbors?

Regards,

Bala


--

Bala Rajagopalan
Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Tel: (732) 923-4237
Fax: (732) 923-9804
Email: braja@tellium.com