Subject: [mpls] Comments on draft-vasseur-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-00 ?

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:15:09 -0600

Dear WG,

Right after the presentation this morning, it was suggested to gather  
feed-back on the usefulness of this ID before moving forward. I got  
some feed-back off-line and on-line (Kenji - KDDI).

Could you tell me whether you think that it is worth being pursed ?

Send comments if any.

Thanks.

JP.

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: "Meyer, Matthew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:24:11 -0500

I would like to echo my support for this work and encourage others to
speak up.  JL's suggestion to extend this to additionally include total
LSP count makes a great deal of sense.

IMO, it would be much better for providers to have this tool in their
toolbox than not.  Consider the impacts of telcom industry consolidation
and Inter-provider MPLS Partnerships - the equipment we may support
tomorrow or network access we may extend services over may not have the
same capabilities as our own.

Providing total count would allow a complete state view of the network
enabling flexibility for LERs to not only distribute temporarily
unaccounted traffic and associated risk more fairly per transmission
path, but also (potentially) skew state allocation per link /size/ or
even router type.

As an example, a network might posses multiple candidate paths over
dissimilar sized (or capability) line cards (use ZBTE metric and link
size to weight selection) or between LSRs of varied state processing
capability (use ZBTE and affinity or SRLG).

Some of the problems providers may have weeded out in the lab may show
up welded to our networks or our service in some way shape or form. If
it seems irrelevant internally we need to remember to think about the
bigger picture.

Thanks,
Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: JP Vasseur [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] Comments on draft-vasseur-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-00 ?

Dear WG,

Send comments if any.

Thanks.

JP.