[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Proposed strategy for Inter-area/AS
Hi JP,
Thanks much for your comments. Response in-line.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Philippe Vasseur [mailto:jvasseur@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 2:58 PM
> To: v.sharma@ieee.org
> Cc: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Kireeti Kompella; Arthi Ayyangar
> Subject: RE: Proposed strategy for Inter-area/AS
>
>
<snip>
> > >
> > > 1. Framework for Interdomain MPLS and GMPLS
> > > A short draft that introduces the routing and signaling options
> > > for multi-domain LSPs, and explains the options for path
> > > computation.
> > > This does not describe applicability or any necessary protocol
> > > procedures or extensions.
> > > Material will be taken from draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-area-as-te
> > > and draft-kompella-mpls-multiarea-te as required.
> > > Authors: Adrian, JP, Arthi
> > > Due date: End of April.
> >
> >As I mentioned at Seoul, I will be happy to help here. Particularly,
> >with adding some material on options for diverse path computation.
> >The current draft-vasseur-ccamp lists two options, but a hybrid
> >that involves partial path computation in each domain (along the
> >lines of what I presented at Seoul) is also possible, and can be a
> >useful tradeoff for meeting several of the requirements listed
> >in the corresponding requirements drafts.
> >
> >Also, I am assuming that the TE requirements documents will be
> >the guiding documents in presenting options for routing/signaling
> >and path computation in the above doc. I think it is important
> >that the framework draft be in synch. with the requirements documents,
> >rather than applying them only for 4 and 6.
>
> Sure,
>
> But I guess that the solution that you propose to compute path
> diversity is
> one among others. Indeed, there are two path computation
> solutions proposed
> in draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-area-as-te that both support path diversity
> computation:
> (1) Per-area/AS in combination with EXCLUDE-OBJECT
> (2) Distributed PCE-based approach which compute end to end
> shortest path that can also easily support diversity path computation with
> a high granularity
>
> Whether a third method can of course be debated.
Actually, the way I see it, there are I believe 4 basic ways to perform
path (and diverse path) computation, which we can break down as follows.
(Diverse) Path Computation Methods
|
|
|
+-----------------------------+
| |
| |
Centralized Distributed
(Global) |
| |
+-----+------+ +---+--------------+
| | | |
Parallel Sequential Parallel Sequential
Joint path 1st path, 2nd path Per-domain 1st path, 2nd path
computation ... path selection ...
(semi-global)
-PCE-based -Head-end based ]
or PCS-based -PCE-based -Using XRO ]
Approaches
]
-Head-end or -draft-dachille based ]
server-based
The various current approaches/solutions to perform path computation may
be classified under one of the 4 heads, as I have done above.
I called solution we proposed in draft-dachille (and that I presented in
Seoul)
a hybrid for computing diverse paths, because it can compute end-to-end
diverse
paths like in the PCE approach, with the simplicity of the per-domain
approach,
and essentially
without any changes to the signaling protocols (save for an ERO-formatted
ARO obj.),
which is a requirement stated in the inter-area/AS TE requirements drafts.
Thus, I believe this solution (not the specific realization presented in
draft-dachille,
but rather the basic idea) is worth mentioning in the interdomain TE
framework document.
Best,
-Vishal