RE: draft-ashwood-ccamp-gmpls-constraints

[ibryskin@movaz.com]

Sure. We can meet today after lunch, otherwise, by email.

Igor


> Igor
>
> Thanks for the feedback I would like to work with you to capture the
> Virtual Link Mode into the draft.
>
> Regards,
> Don
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ibryskin@movaz.com [mailto:ibryskin@movaz.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 5:32 AM
>>
>> 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
>
>