Re: reminder: things todo in august and shortly thereafter

[Tricci So <tso@caspiannetworks.com>]

Hi Jerry,

Many thanks for your info regarding Class-Type priority definitions and LSP bandwidth modification
selection example.

I can see that the amount of path computation would be very extensive with the solution that you
proposed.  May I ask, have you done any performance analysis to determine if such solution is
scalable for a large core network, let's say 10's thousands of LSPs?

Thanks again to your pointer......
Tricci

P.S.  I haven't read you crankback draft yet.  More comments will be provided once I read it.
Thanks....

"Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALCTA" wrote:

> Tricci,
>
> See comments below.
>
> Thanks,
> Jerry Ash
>
> > draft-ash-mpls-diffserv-te-alternative-02.txt
>
> > In section 3.2, although there are some brief descriptions on the intents
> of the
> > "admission-control priority classes" and "restoration priority classes".
> To me, it > is still unclear about why these two classes are needed in order
> to allow higher
> > priority LSP to be set up first and be protected first.  More explanation
> on
> > the motivation on these types of priority classes would be very useful.
> More
> > importantly, how exactly they are being coordinated with each other when
> performing
> > the TE function?
>
> See the attached PDF document for further explanation of our thoughts on
> class types and the role of admission control priority and restoration
> priority.  We plan to issue an I-D on this in the next few weeks.
>
> > I have a lot of trouble of trying to understand how to handle the
> crankback
> > situation for the example which is described in section 3.2 for the LSP
> setup at
> > the ingress and transit LSRs.  Since there is no mention on how each node
> > recognizes the protected-CT-bandwidth level across the selected hops, when
>
> > performing crankback, how the crankback node recognizes which new hop to
> > select to set up the LSP.  More details on this aspect for the example
> would
> > be extremely useful.
>
> As specified in the I-D on crankback
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iwata-mpls-crankback-01.txt,
> the transit LSR can either crankback to the ingress LSR or a border LSR.  In
> the example, after a transit LSR recognizes that requirements are not met on
> the next hop (e.g., lack of sufficient available bandwidth), the transit LSR
> sends crankback to the ingress LSR.  The ingress LSR then selects another
> LSP choice, based on several possible algorithms.  The attached figure gives
> some further details of an example, see also
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-qos-routing-01.txt
> (e.g., Section 3.4).
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                               Name: mpls.diffserv.te.class.types.082901.pdf
>    mpls.diffserv.te.class.types.082901.pdf    Type: Acrobat (application/pdf)
>                                           Encoding: base64
>
>                                                  Name: mpls.diffserv.te.lsp.selection.example.pdf
>    mpls.diffserv.te.lsp.selection.example.pdf    Type: Acrobat (application/pdf)
>                                              Encoding: base64