The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2005-Feb> msg00059



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Re: a question

  • From: "Alok" <alokdube@hotpop.com>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:28:56 +0530
  • Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:22:40 -0500
  • X-HotPOP: ----------------------------------------------- Sent By HotPOP.com FREE Email Get your FREE POP email at www.HotPOP.com -----------------------------------------------
  • X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.45

> It in no way seems to simply say "this node has a link with this color".
>
> Perhaps I do not understand the need of an abstraction on a per link
bases.

Rather:
"this node has a link to that node with this color".

for the example I gave below

R1-----------R2
|--------------|

If I color upper as red, blue and lower as yellow, green

I still get linkupper-"red,blue" and linklower"yellow,green", not a bundled
aggregate from R1 to R2 with color "red blue yellow green".

I hope I can clarify my point here, this is similar to what I was asking
about VCs.

How does knowledge of component links matter at the head end(....though I
understand Link state protocols need to make graphs using links), but the
property is still an aggregate property between adjacencies.


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