The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Multi-LSP Notify in GMPLS
Another point. With link bundling, a significant number of component links might fail without causing an IGP flooding event. -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 6:15 AM To: Markus Jork Cc: Jonathan Lang; 'Lou Berger'; mpls@UU.NET; Adrian Farrel Subject: Re: Multi-LSP Notify in GMPLS In message <200009281815.e8SIF8400475@mailhost.avici.com>, Markus Jork writes: > Jonathan, > > > Lou, > > As we've discussed before, latency is clearly an issue. Imagine a fiber > > cut where 80+ wavelengths are affected... > > Why would you want intermediate nodes processing messages that aren't > > intended for them? > > > > -Jonathan > > I thought I gave an answer to this question in my original message... > That's just how RSVP works and on what it bases its authentication > mechanism. > > Markus Both happen. RSVP tears go out and the IGP advertises the loss of an adjacency. The hierarchy of tunnels can have an impact on restoration. In the optical domain, if the lambdas are in use a number of LSC tunnels have been set up and over these a number of PSC-1 tunnels have been set up. The 80+ RSVP tear messages go to the ingress of those tunnels and the IGP advertisement goes out to declare the LSC hop down. If there is restoration in the optical domain, at the ingress or at any midpoint, the LSC tunnels remain up. Any PSC tunnels that use the LSC tunnels rather than rely on the optical hop by hop are unaffected. If there is no restoration in the optical domain, the PSC-1 tunnel may provide restoration through some means such as having a backup path. Alternately the PSC tunnel may reroute at the time of failure if the (rather long by SONET standards) restoration time of this method is acceptable to the traffic that is tunneled through it. If the PSC-1 tunnel can be restored the tunnels that go through it are unaffected. By unaffected here I hean that no rerouting occurred at that level in the hierarchy (for example a PSC-2 tunnel was not rerouted). Some loss occurred if a fiber was cut and restored no matter how it gets restored. The last thing you want to happen is to notify each of the thousands of MPLS edge to edge tunnels that go through those 80+ fibers. The lower down in the hierarchy that the restoration occurs the better. Ideally it impacts 80+ tunnels and no more. The Notify doesn't really help much because optimizing at that level misses the point. Curtis |
|