The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] 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 > |
|