The MPLS WG Archive

["David Allan" <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>]

Title: RE: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols

Shahram:

Wasn't 15% although the relationship was linear and not exponential, and where the argument got heated was comparing the LSH count vs. overall state. Unstated was if you used per-platform space the amount of state at the downstream LSRs of each LSH diminished significantly (although still more or less a linear relationship and probably forced use of liberal label retention so you didn't need to remember the list of folks who cared about your label, in other words your state issues got pushed upstream).

Not that I want to start THAT discussion again..... ;-)

cheers
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shahram Davari [mailto:Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 11:15 AM
> To: 'Giles Heron'; neil.2.harrison@bt.com
> Cc: mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: RE: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols
>
>
> Giles,
>
> >
> > I want *both* mp2p LDP and targetted LDP.
> >
> > I want the former because it:
> >
> > 1) minimises the number of labels required in the core - O(N) rather
> > than O(N squared).
> >
>
> I think Heinrich Hummel demonstrated in the Japan (as
> predicted by Dave Allan)
> that mp2p (LDP) results only ~15% less states than N^2 mesh.
>
> -Shahram
>
>