Hi Tony, Our goal is consolidation of paths, not LSPs. Afterwards, you would still > have two LSPs to the egress, but they would likely be routed on the same > path. By consolidating more LSPs onto fewer paths, there are hopefully > links that are idle and can be put into power sleep mode. >
Ok.. Note I would not do it that way, but I see what you mean. Changing paths of an RSVP-TE given LSP is really not a make-before-break operation. At least last time I checked into this space. Moreover if we are really talking RSVP-TE I am not sure I would sign under design where two LSPs are traversing the same underlay path. It results in more periodic refreshes/signalling for no value. We do not need interoperability. Each head-end is free to perform their > own path computations in any way that they see fit. In fact, this is key to > incremental deployment. > I beg to differ on this one. > As such, we also do not need an architecture document. This is not an > architectural change. > And on this one as well. Your real success depends on nodes in the domain playing the same song from the same notes. I agree that shutting down a link is best done with some coordination, but > the IGP is not the correct mechanism for doing this. I disagree that > shutting down any other infrastructure requires or benefits from any > external mechanism. > Not sure if we are communicating here. If shutting down the link or lc requires some central management station it does change the full design (perhaps simplifies it vastly) where all of the optimizations can be centrally managed perhaps to varying degrees. Kind regards, Robert
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
