The MPLS WG Archive

[Bala Rajagopalan <braja@tellium.com>]

This is exactly what link groups accomplish, i.e.,
a single adjacency between OXCs with multiple
link groups (or sub-bundles).

Bala

Yangguang Xu wrote:

> Kireeti,
>
> One implication Frank hinted is that:
>
> For A----B, even there could be many bundles between A and B, there needs only
> one control channel (no need for physical channel, a TCP session is enough)
> between them. Bundle in circuit network is different from "interface" in IP
> network in the sense that a bundle can be included in one LSA, but only send to
> neighbor once.
>
> I hope this is agreed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yangguang
>
> Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> >
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > > My perspective is naive, but as I understand it, the current proposals
> > > require a control link to "overlay" an optical link exactly, and for the
> > > control path(s) to be associated with groups of optical links according to
> > > their characteristics (i.e. bandwidth - OC-48 vs OC-192).
> >
> > > Some of us in the optical world, growing from the telephony (SONET/SDH)
> > > world do NOT assume that this overlay occurs. We prefer to offer the
> > > provider (in my case, my customer) to have management networks that are not
> > > the same as the transport networks. This is because in-band signaling is not
> > > yet available (though OIF is working on it) and because providers may not
> > > want to dedicate a wavelength to relatively low-speed management traffic.
> >
> > We have the notion of separate control channels and data paths in many
> > drafts.  See draft-ietf-mpls-lmp-00.txt for a brief description.
> >
> > Kireeti.

--

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