Re: draft-ashwood-ccacmp-gmpls-constraints

[ibryskin@movaz.com]

Hi,

I believe this is a very useful draft. The described blocking problem (a
limited ability of a node to cross-connect resources on input and output
links wrt a particular LSP) exists not only in the Virtual Node scenario:
there could be ?real? network elements experiencing the problem (perhaps,
because of the hardware limitations). Hence there is a need for a routing
controller to be capable to advertise a map of acceptable (or
unacceptable) input-output link combinations, and for a path computer to
account for such a constraint (which is not trivial).

I also would suggest the authors to consider the Virtual Link mode, that
is, representing the domain to the outside world as a bunch of PEs
interconnected by abstract (virtual) links. This approach may require more
advertisements compared to the Virtual Node mode; however, it does relieve
external path computers from handling the interface maps, plus it gives
the idea about the cost and attributes of feasible paths across the
domain.

Igor

>
> Since we did not get through all the CCAMP agenda today, I would still
> like to get feedback on the following draft.
>
> Link Viability Constraints Don Fedyk (5 mins)
> http://home.clara.net/olddog/63/draft-ashwood-ccamp-gmpls-constraint-req
> ts-00.ppt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ashwood-ccamp-gmpls-constraint
> -reqts-00.txt
>
> Note the draft is about interfacing a dynamic optical system to a GMPLS
> control plane but puts forward the argument we can avoid for now the
> standardization of the detailed optical constraints.  I would like to
> see this in Scope for the IETF (CCAMP) even though I realize the
> detailed (or complex) optical constraints may be years from being in
> scope and standardization. The current draft is a requirements draft
> with some preliminary ideas on how this can be achieved. I would like to
> solicit others who are interested in working this problem.
>
> Please send feedback, I'm around till Friday if anyone would like to
> discuss in person,
> Thanks,
> Don
>
>
>
>
>
>