The MPLS WG Archive

[Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@rd.francetelecom.com>]

I believe liushuying was perhaps more worried about control plane load,
at reconvergence, for a high number of P2MP tunnels. 
Though the concern is valid, I would say that things should roughly be
comparable to what happens with PIM. But I think it is fair to say that
this aspect requires consideration in the solution design.

Cheers,

-Thomas

IJsbrand Wijnands:
> 
> We have some ideas on how to minimize the traffic loss during  
> switchover, but I'm not sure if we can prevent it without some kind of  
> FRR mechanism.
> 
> Thx,
> 
> Ice.
> 
> BTW, I support make this a WG document.
> 
> 
> On Feb 9, 2006, at 7:56 AM, liushuying wrote:
> 
> > Hi folks,
> >     I support this draft becoming a WG document.
> >
> >     However,i am about to ask a  question.
> >
> >    1) 2.3.2.4.  Upstream LSR change
> >
> >    If, for a given node Z participating in a P2MP LSP <X, Y>, the
> >    upstream LSR changes, say from U to U', then Z MUST update its
> >    forwarding state by deleting the state for label L, allocating a new
> >    label, L', for <X,Y>, and installing the forwarding state for L'.   
> > In
> >    addition Z MUST send a Label Map <X, Y, L'> to U' and send a Label
> >    Withdraw <X, Y, L> to U.
> >
> >   The question:
> >   When a large quantity of P2MP LSPs exists in MPLS networks,
> >   if unicast routing information changes, there may be many LSRs
> >   whose upstream LSRs have changed in every P2MP LSP, each of them  
> > sends a Label Withdraw message
> >   to its old upstream LSR and a Label Map message to its new upstream  
> > LSR  at the same time,
> >   so the load of every LSR will enhance sharply and last for a long  
> > time.
> >   As a result, the time of traffic disruption in every P2MP LSP will  
> > last for a long time,
> >   and so many packets will be lost.
> >
> >   Thanks
> >   Shuying Liu
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 07:50:51 -0500
> >> From: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
> >> Subject: [mpls] LDP Multicast to WG Document
> >> To: mpls@ietf.org
> >> Message-ID: <20060206125051.3E3BD17B472@SwallowPB.local>
> >>
> >> It has been requested that
> >>
> >> Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and
> >>             Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths
> >>                 draft-minei-wijnands-mpls-ldp-p2mp-00
> >>
> >> become a MPLS WG document.
> >>
> >> Please indicate your support or objections by the end of this week.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> ...George
> >>
> >> ====================================================================== 
> >> ==
> >> George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  (978)  
> >> 936-1398
> >>                           1414 Massachusetts Avenue
> >>                           Boxborough, MA 01719
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mpls mailing list
> >> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls