RE: What we disagree on RE: TE Requirements Draft-ELSP

[Francois Le Faucheur <flefauch@europe.cisco.com>]

Shai,

At 13:13 06/12/2001 -0500, Shai Herzog wrote:

> >> 3) In particular on the operational front, they both require
> >> the SP to manage things at the granularity of the OA
> >> (ie monitor/compute/configure bandwidth requirements on a
> >> per OA basis). I believe this is often the dominant scalability
> >> burden.
> >
> >It would be a shame to limit the protocol extensions and DS-TE
> >framework because of limitations in vendor equipment path
> >computation schemes. If this argument was used, OSPF would never
> >have been deployed.
>
>Yap. How about other forms of aggregation. I also fail to understand the
>scalability argument. You are talking about factor of 2-3 only on a small
>subset of LSPs.
>
>As we all know mathematically O(multiple OA) = O(Single OA). Since they
>scale the same way the efficiency and scalability argument is simply false.

all agreed.

>If on the other hand Francois can show improvement of an order of magnitud
>at least I'll understand the motivation for this weird solution.

You lost me here. Did you really mean "Francois" above?
In case it isn't clear, Francois is arguing ,like you, that there is a very 
little gain in scalability in (iiia) and therefore that we shouldn't create 
yet another protocol option for this...

>BTW: there are other, more efficient ways of dealing with this built into
>MPLS already... Why don't these SP use hierarchical MPLS tunnel aggregation?
>I can show several order of magnitude improvement there (x1000?).

Agreed.

Francois

>Shai