The MPLS WG Archive

[Yangguang Xu <xuyg@lucent.com>]

Kireeti,

Thanks, please see my comment below:

> 
> Meanwhile, let me say this explicitly: between a pair of GLSRs (i.e.,
> LSRs, OXCs, SXCs, ...), the requirement is that there must be at
> least one control channel; the requirement is *not* one per bundle.
> Corresponding to this control channel, one routing adjacency is
> needed.
> 

The key point is that routing adjacency in circuit switched network data plane
has nothing to do with control channels (the control plane). At least there
shouldn't be any assumption about their co-existence.

For each routing adjacency (in data plane), you only need a TCP session as Frank
hinted. Not necessary a physical control channel.


> The routing module can generate LSAs for all the bundle(s) assigned
> to a control channel when both the control channel adjacency is up
> and the bundles are up (LMP can be used to say when the bundles are
> up).  If a bundle changes, the LSA corresponding to that bundle alone
> is re-flooded.
> 

I agree your point of flooding control. 

BTW, I had a feeling that LMP suggest control channel for each bundle. (I read
it long time ago, can't remember exactly). If this is the case, it's simply not
right. For example, a OXC has 10 neighbors, between each neighbor there are 2
bundles, then do you need 20 control channels? NO!

Bundle has nothing to do with control channel.

> This addresses the issue of flood optimization: having multiple
> bundles does *not* mean having multiple adjacencies, so flooding
> optimization is not a requirement.

Agree,

> 
> Kireeti.