The MPLS WG Archive

[Bala Rajagopalan <braja@tellium.com>]

Hello,

I agree that bundling and flooding optimization are separate
mechanisms. But if a particular bundling scheme necessarily results in multiple
adjacencies, then flooding optimization would be adviced. Of course,
a claim can always be made that flooding opt. is optional and
orthogonal, but if it is not used in this case, I don't see its utility.
Thus, IMO, draft-kompella-mpls-bundle... creates a neccesity
for flooding opt.Furthermore, this bundling approach
requires the support for multiple unnumbered links (bundles),
(i.e., draft-kompella-mpls-unnumbered-xx.txt.)

Now, the bundling scheme proposed in our draft addresses
SRLG-based bundling, and it results in a single adjacency.
For optical network applications, this obviates a need for
any type of flooding optimization. And, there is no need to
support extensions for multiple unnumbered links. In esssence,
the simple device of link groups eliminates the need for two
other extensions, one in routing, another in signaling.

Other than this, the parameter descriptions in our draft are
pretty straightforward, link type descriptions that suit SONET
link types.

Our bundling proposal doesn't preclude the use of separate
bundle for each link group (along with support for
flooding opt., and multiple unnumbered bundles). In this sense, our
proposal is more flexible. I really don't
see why there should be an objection to it.


Regards,

Bala

Alex Zinin wrote:

> Agree 100%.
>
> We have 3 techniques that are somewhat related, but yet orthogonal:
>
> 1. Link bundling
> 2. Control channel[s] for link bundles (LMP)
> 3. IGP flooding optimizations
>
> Link bundling allows to summarize the TE information.
> LMP allows to minimize the number of adjacencies per bundle
> (note that LMP will not have to be implemented on each type
> of links), and flooding optimizations minimize overhead traffic
> over parallel adjacencies.
>
> Alex.
>
> Monday, October 16, 2000, 9:05 AM, Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org> wrote:
>
> > Bala,
>
> > I remember there being consensus at Pittsburgh on making the Kompella
> > bundles draft a WG item.
>
> > Use of the flooding optitimization is one means of improving the
> > efficiency of the IGP and is a separate issue.
>
> > Both the bundles and the flooding optitimization can stand alone.
> > Neither one depends on the other.  If used together they may
> > complement each other but use of either one separately is possible and
> > useful.
>
> > I don't see that any changes are required to the bundles draft to
> > accommodate the flooding optitimization.  If changes are required,
> > please point them out.
>
> > Curtis

--

Bala Rajagopalan
Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Tel: (732) 923-4237
Fax: (732) 923-9804
Email: braja@tellium.com