The MPLS WG Archive

[Loa Andersson <loa.andersson@utfors.se>]

All,

it seems like this discussion, though related, now has deviated enough
from what was originally intended with this thread, could you please
change the subject line

Hummel Heinrich wrote:

> Note, my mentioning of " the  groups of sites" is just an initial thought. But if you have attended the
> elementary classes of the PNNI-school, you will be confident that this goal can be achieved:-)
> Heinrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Shahram Davari [mailto:Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 29. Juli 2002 18:06
> An: 'Hummel Heinrich'; 'Giles Heron'; neil.2.harrison@bt.com
> Cc: mpls@UU.NET
> Betreff: RE: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols
> 
> 
> Ok, my mistake.
> 
> -Shahram
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Hummel Heinrich [mailto:Heinrich.Hummel@icn.siemens.de]
>>Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 12:04 PM
>>To: Shahram Davari; 'Giles Heron'; neil.2.harrison@bt.com
>>Cc: mpls@UU.NET
>>Subject: AW: initiating a discussion on mpls singaling protocols
>>
>>
>>NO, the savings are much more. They are about 85 % reduction, 
>>so that 15 % remains.( I will not talk down these savings)
>>However, 0.15  * O(n**2) will still be far too much, if n is 
>>big enough.
>>
>>Note that method (4) as of 
>>draft-hummel-mpls-n-square-investigations-00.txt also uses 
>>merging H-LSPs as to reduce the
>>costs at the PEs, e.g. down to 0.15 * O(n**2). 
>>
>>But I also pointed out that even this is not good enough, if 
>>n = 7500 for example. For VPNs of such size, we should even 
>>form groups of sites (e.g. all sites within one city form a group)
>>and may have:
>>a) a partial mesh of elementary LSPs (which form a tree, a 
>>ring, a ring of trees, a tree of rings,or a chessboard grit)
>>b) a full mesh of hierarchical LSPs between the groups of sites
>>c) a full mesh of hierarchical LSPs between the sites of each 
>>group of sites
>>
>>In order to accomplish effective full mesh connectivity, it 
>>may be appropriate to advertise all these LSPs (their ingress
>>and their egress, as well as their starting labels, etc.) - 
>>roughly spoken.
>> 
>>Of course it will take more labor, more conceptual thinking. 
>>E.g. so that the VC-label handling is integrated rather than
>>an "abuse" :-)
>>
>>
>>Heinrich
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>Von: Shahram Davari [mailto:Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com]
>>Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Juli 2002 17:15
>>An: 'Giles Heron'; neil.2.harrison@bt.com
>>Cc: mpls@UU.NET
>>Betreff: 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 
>>
> 


-- 
     Loa Andersson
     Chief Architect,
     Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
     Utfors AB
     Råsundavägen 12
     Box 525, 169 29 Solna
     Office          +46 8 5270 2000
     Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
     Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
     Email           loa.andersson@utfors.se
     WWW             www.utfors.se