The MPLS WG Archive

["Ferrell, William" <William.Ferrell@titan.com>]

Steve
Yes , you hit the nail on the head .. That was the "this"
In essence we're saying that risk is mititaged through effective design and
numeric improbability, right.
Will

-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Villamizar
To: Ferrell, William
Cc: 'Steve Yao '; ''curtis@fictitious.org' '; 'mpls '
Sent: 3/17/03 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Between OSPF RSVP... 


In message <561621C69F17D511A3A20050047340EC01AAF610@VCMD-NT1>,
"Ferrell, Willi
am" writes:
>  
> Steve 
> 
> I ask a simple question or two. 
> 1. how detrimental could this be to our MPLS implementation and 
> 2. What should we do to mitigate the risk ?
> Will


Will,

What is "this" in your question?  If it partially filled RRO, we
determined it not occur except for certain conditions that are
entirely a matter of network design (such as interarea).  We also
concluded that even if the RRO was partially filled, the path-tear and
notify (if used) would handle tear down and initiate reroute.

Please be more specific in your question, if I haven't answered it.

Curtis



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Yao
> To: 'curtis@fictitious.org'
> Cc: mpls
> Sent: 3/14/03 12:51 PM
> Subject: RE: Between OSPF RSVP... 
> 
> 
> 
> >Steve,
> >
> >In two messages prior you stated:
> >
> >> The RRO received at the HE only contains the IP addresses 
> >that map to half
> >> of the LSAs or LSPs that the LSP traversed. 
> >
> >You mentioned that only half the LSA/LSPDU were in the RRO, so the
> >question "What cases were you thinking of?" that you just asked
should
> >be directed to you.
> 
> I asked the question since you mentioned earlier:
> 
> >It wasn't intended to cover all cases and does not depricate use of
> >path-tear.  You still didn't answer my question.
> 
> But it is ok if you don't want to answer the question.
> 
> >
> >Since you brought up the issue "where RRO may be too large" why don't
> >you do the math and tell us 1) how big the RRO would have to be to be
> >too large and 2) how likely you think that is of occurring.  RSVPd
> >objects can be 64KB each.  The IPv4 address subobject is 8 bytes
long,
> >including type and length.  Add a label subobject (8 bytes) and fit
it
> >into a reasonable MTU and you're still at hundreds of hops.  I get
> >200+ into a 4KB MTU and most networks seem to be going for 8K MTU so
I
> >get "not very likely" for question 2).
> >
> >Curtis
> >
> 
> I agree that this is not very likely.
> 
> Steve
>  <<ATT77972.txt>> 
>