The MPLS WG Archive

[darren.freeland@bt.com]

Hi Zhi,

Your description sounds fine.  Note that we may also wish to offer shared
protection and other protection options as well as your three examples
though.

Regards,
Darren.

-----Original Message-----
From: Zhi-Wei Lin [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com]
Sent: 23 October 2000 17:17
To: Sid Chaudhuri
Cc: 'Kireeti Kompella'; xuyg@lucent.com; yxue@UU.NET;
ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com; mpls@UU.NET
Subject: Re: [IP-Optical] RE: Optical link bundling. Was Re:
DraftMinutes From Pittsburgh


Hi Sid,

And to generalize even further, if a service provider sets up three
grades of service (e.g., bronze, gold, platinum), the protection
information should already be embedded within those service grades. For
example, bronze is no protection at all, gold is dynamic mesh
restoration, and platinum is 1+1 protection. 

I think what is most important to a service provider and their customers
are the availability of the connection, i.e., is the connection up
99.99% or 99.999% or some other number. How the service provider chooses
to handle how to meet that availability number is up to the service
provider and their TE.

Am I mis-representing the service provider here? Maybe some service
providers can comment on whether the above description sounds right???

Thanks
Zhi


Sid Chaudhuri wrote:
> 
> I don't see why TE and protection require the routers to specify explicit
> routes.
> The routers can simply specify to the optical layer what type of optical
> layer protection
> it requires.  Based on its traffic flow a router only needs to know
between
> which
> two routers it needs to establish a new lightpath.  How the lightpath is
> routed in the
> optical layer seems to me irrelevant to TE.
> 
> Sid Chaudhuri
> 
>                 -----Original Message-----
>                 From:   Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
>                 Sent:   Monday, October 23, 2000 11:43 AM
>                 To:     xuyg@lucent.com; yxue@UU.NET
>                 Cc:     ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com; mpls@UU.NET
>                 Subject:        Re: [IP-Optical] RE: Optical link
bundling.
> Was Re: DraftMinutes From         Pittsburgh
> 
>                 Hi,
> 
>                 > > (router determines the explicit routes).
>                 >
>                 > This point has been raised by several folks. It really
> confuses me. If the
>                 > optical switches are equipped with path calculation
> ability, what's the benefit
>                 > to bother router to determine the explicit routes within
> optical domain
>                 > (assuming router can be smart enough to handle all
optical
> network specific
>                 > attributes and constrains) than just have routers to
> determine the end points of
>                 > optical trails.
> 
>                 Why does this confuse you?  Routers may want to determine
> the exact
>                 path that their LSPs take for a number of reasons,
including
> TE and
>                 protection.  If a router doesn't care where its LSPs are
> laid out,
>                 it can install loose hops at the boundaries of the optical
> cloud.
> 
>                 Kireeti.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IP-Optical mailing list
> IP-Optical@lists.bell-labs.com
> http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/ip-optical

-- 
Zhi-Wei Lin
Lucent Technologies                       Tel: +1 732 949 5141
101 Crawfords Corner Rd, Rm 3C-512        Fax: +1 732 949 3210
Holmdel, New Jersey 07733-3030 USA      Email: zwlin@lucent.com