The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [IP-Optical] RE: Optical link bundling. Was Re: DraftMinutes From Pittsburgh
Bert, As I explained at length in an earlier Email it is a big mistake to assume that separate administrative domains implies physical diversity. (I talked about separate carriers, but it applies pretty generally.) John John Strand AT&T Lightwave Networks Research Dept. 100 Schulz Drive, Room 4-212 Red Bank, N.J. 07701-7033 (732)345-3255 jls@research.att.com -----Original Message----- From: ip-optical-admin@lists.bell-labs.com [mailto:ip-optical-admin@lists.bell-labs.com]On Behalf Of Manfredi, Albert E Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 11:44 AM To: 'alchiu@research.att.com' Cc: ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com; mpls@UU.NET Subject: RE: [IP-Optical] RE: Optical link bundling. Was Re: DraftMinutes From Pittsburgh Angela Chiu wrote: > Bert, > > Two disjoint links in IP layer may not be diversely routed in > the physically > layer, for example they could share the same fiber conduit as > certain point > of the routes. See our draft > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chiu-strand-uniqu > e-olcp-00.txt > for more details on this. Of course. But if a client wants to achieve path diversity at Layer 3, for whatever reasons of reliability, then the service provider could provide that client with the appropriate paths to use, based on that service provider's physical network. Nothing new to invent? And if the service provider sets up the separate paths over separate OSPF areas, for example, one might ensure that the paths stay physically separate. Bert albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com _______________________________________________ IP-Optical mailing list IP-Optical@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/ip-optical
|
|