The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Ping Pan <pingpan@juniper.net>]

Robert Raszuk wrote:

>>I would like to do something
>>that is new.
>>
> 
> Well what you are describing below is nothing new at all. It is just
> known as path protection for TE-LSPs. The concept is well known and even
> some production implementations already support it :).
> 
> R.
>


Yes. In addition, an IETF MPLS WG draft on this topic has been submitted 
last week.

Back to the "something new" topic, how to setup backup LSPs has been 
well designed and developed. In several more recent research 
conferences, some ideas have been floating on interfacing with routing 
protocols to setup the backup LSPs that can achieve the most optimal 
network resource usage, but I am not certain it is a practical issue in 
today's backbone networks.

2 cents,

- Ping


> 
>>ramu wrote:
>>
>>Hi,
>>I got some doubts.
>>Regarding my thesis, I would like to do something
>>that is new.
>>Then, I got an idea.
>>Considering fault-tolerance in MPLS,
>>We will always have back-up path for the current path.
>>If current path fails, the traffic is shifted onto the backup one.
>>Once restored the traffic is shifted back to the current one.
>>Now, this way the load oscillations will occur which is undesirable if
>>=
>>the failure occurs frequently on the current one, since the
>>probability =
>>will be higher to failure.
>>So, what if we can use the backup path as the main path, though
>>previous path is restored.
>>Now, the load oscillations will be less.
>>What is your idea on this.
>>Is this worth enough? or is this ridiculous?
>>
>>Thank you very much,
>>Sincerely,
>>Ramachandra Bachala
>>
> 
> -------
> The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
> Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
> 



-- 
Ping Pan      Phone: (408)-745-3704

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml