Subject: [IP-Optical] GMPLS Scalability (fwd)

From: Kevin Liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:16:08 -0400 (EDT)

Hi,
Can the authors of this document
w3.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-many-gmpls-architecture-00.txt
comment on the following question posted yesterday?

In the implementation I have seen, people delibrately
separate MPLS or the FA from the IP (such as OSPF or the RA).
In other words, IP usually thinks MPLS is only a VALUE-ADDED
SERVICE. So the question is how scalable the GMPLS FA is.

Thanks very much,
-- Kevin Liu
p.s. I am not on the list of [email-masked].

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 16:54:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kevin Liu <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [IP-Optical] GMPLS Scalability

The GMPLS architecture Internet draft mentioned a Forwarding Adjacencies (FA)
in addition to the Routing Adjacencies (RA). The FA is formed by LSPs
e.g. the non-PSC circuits.

My question is on the scalability of the FA. If OSPF maintains both
RA and FA, how do we address the following problems.
* FA may need to support N^2 connectivity (i.e. the full mesh).
* FA is more dynamic than physical topology and soft state LSP reservation
tends to generate lots of control traffic.
* can someone give an example of how the RA hierarchy can be formed.

-- Kevin Liu

_______________________________________________
IP-Optical mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/ip-optical