Subject: queries on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt

From: "john smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 19:36:32 +0530

Hello,

in the draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt

can the procedure defined to establish TE-LSPs be summarized as follows:
1. An FA is a LSP treated as a Layer-2 path between 2 end points. This is
treated as "link" in the OSPF/ISIS SPF algorithm with the link given its
associated parameters. A LSP between 2 adjacent nodes could also be a TE
LSP...an LSP between any 2 LERs could be a FA LSP...is this correct?
2. All the TE LSDB information for the entire topology (assuming a single
OSPF area) computed and each node knows the "total bandwidth" avaliable per
FA/TE link...is this correct?
3. each TE-LSP that is now setup with bandwidth constraints now eats away on
the total bandwdith per FA/TE LSP..is this correct?
4. can the TE LSP and FA LSPs overlap..that is can multiple TE LSPs be
included in 1 FA LSP..is this correct?
5. Consider a topology with multiple LERs and LSRs.....as and when bandwidth
from each TE-LSP or FA-LSP is allocated to flows, how does one signal other
nodes in the topology that they should use the total - reserved bandwdith
for their path computation?..is this mentioned in this or any other draft?

hope someone can take the time off to clarify this,

-regards
JS

---

From: "john smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 20:08:33 +0530

> for their path computation?..is this mentioned in this or any other draft?

will this imply that if there are n possible ways to setup an LSP, between 2
points with given constraints, this will lead to each of the n possible
paths being checked one by one till a suitable match is found....

and if the end points are p hops away, each hop having n[k] possible paths,
one may end up computing
sum (n[k],0<i<p) paths before finding the correct path to take (in case of a
highly congested network?)?

-JS

---

From: "K 9" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:17:23 +0530

Hello John

okie lets assume no unnumbered links.....

i would use strict there....

is that a problem with you?

>From: "john smith" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: queries on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt
>Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 20:08:33 +0530
>

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail