RE : RE : Proposed strategy for Inter-area/AS

[Jean Philippe Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>]

At 06:15 PM 4/26/2004 +0200, LE ROUX Jean-Louis FTRD/DAC/LAN wrote:
> Hi Fabio,
>
> Advertising only a subset would improve scalability, but
> this would not be enough to correclty select the best path.
>
> Let's assume that there are three paths from a given ABR X to a given 
> destination D
> Path 1: bw 100M admin group {green;blue}
> Path 2: bw 50M admin group {red; blue}
> Path 3: bw 5M admin group {red;green}
>
> and a TE-LSP L : Destination D, bw= 4M, affinity= exlude blue
>
> If you advertise only Path 1 and Path 2 as virtual links, ABR X will never 
> be selected as next ABR for this TE-LSP, while path 3 is a feasible path.

and moreover, this gets even more difficult if two ABRs must be traversed 
between the source and the destination ....

JP.


> Regards
>
> JL
>
>
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] De la part de ricciato
> > Envoyé : lundi 26 avril 2004 09:48
> > À : LE ROUX Jean-Louis FTRD/DAC/LAN
> > Cc : adrian@olddog.co.uk; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Objet : Re: RE : Proposed strategy for Inter-area/AS
> >
> >
> > Hi JL,
> >
> > just a quick remark: would it make sense in this case to
> > advertise only
> > a selected subset of the N virtual links (say the two with
> > most residual
> > bw) ?
> >
> > ciao
> > fabio
> >
> > LE ROUX Jean-Louis FTRD/DAC/LAN wrote:
> >
> > >Let's assume that there are N distinct paths from ABR A to a
> > >destination X, each with a distinct bandwidth and distinct
> > admin-group
> > >(a path admin group being expressed as a logical AND of the
> > link admin
> > >groups along the path) How can you summarize such topology ?
> > Actually
> > >you need to advertise N virtual links, each with a distinct
> > admin-group
> > >and available bandwidth.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >