Subject: [mpls] new draft of the framework and requirements for Composite Transport Group

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:33:00 +0000

Dear all,

We have uploaded the draft of the framework and requirements for
Composite Transport Group.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-framework-req
uirement-00.txt

Abstract

   This document states a traffic distribution problem in today's IP/

   MPLS network when multiple links are configured between two routers.

   The document presents a Composite Transport Group framework as the

   solution for the problems and specifies a set of requirements for

   Composite Transport Group(CTG).

We appreciate your input/comments and look forward to discussing in
Minneapolis.

Ning So

Lead Engineer

Data Traffic Engineering

972-729-7905

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

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:15:49 +0000

Gregg,

The LSP and connection mapping to the component link in CTG is done
using constrain based routing with the shortest path first.
Bi-directional LSPs being routed onto the same component link or not
should not be a problem in MPLS environment.  Are you saying that in
some cases in GMPLS environment, bi-directional LSP has to be carried on
the same component link?  What problem would occur if they are carried
on different component links?  Would that problem still exist if the
different component links have the same performance objectives such as
latency?  I need a bit more detail in order to understand your concern. 

Ning So

Lead Engineer

Data Traffic Engineering

972-729-7905

________________________________

From: Mirsky, Gregory [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:17 PM
To: So, Ning; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [mpls] new draft of the framework and requirements for
Composite Transport Group

Dear So,

if a bidirectional TE LSP is signaled by (G)MPLS how would CTG guarantee
that the same Component Link is used in each direction? As I understand,
mapping of particular TE LSP to the Component Link is local policy-based
decision. If my understanding is correct, should it be a requirement for
the CTG to provide controls to support co-routed mapping of
bidirectional/co-routed LSP?

    Regards,

        Greg

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
So, Ning
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:33 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] new draft of the framework and requirements for
Composite Transport Group

Dear all,

 

 

Abstract

 

Ning So

Lead Engineer

Data Traffic Engineering

972-729-7905