Hi Lizhong, Edward, It seems that it is a good idea to apply HSMP LSP to VPLS, and the broadcast/unicast/unknow packet would be optimized. However, the path from leaf to root may not be the best path compared with current VPLS using P2P LSP, which is not a critical issue.
Thanks Lamberto > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:50:45 +0800 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [mpls] Request comments for HSMP LSP > To: Ed <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], Ice <[email protected]>, > [email protected], [email protected] > Message-ID: > < > of4ba0bf75.a883e04c-on4825780f.002802e4-4825780f.002b2...@zte.com.cn> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi Edward, > Thank you for the comments. I add l2vpn maillist in cc list. I agree with > the application you proposed, and in order to improve the scalability of > VPLS, P2MP PW multiplexed to HSMP LSP could be used for VPLS. Actually > this is a good application case for P2MP PW with reverse path (section > 4.4, draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-00). We can add some description about this > use case. > > Regards > Lizhong > > > Ed <[email protected]> wrote on 2011-01-05 15:05:30: > > > Hi Lizhong, > > > > I think one possible application for HSMP LSPs is to reduce the > > overall broadcast/multicast utilization on a VPLS. In current VPLS > > implementations with a full mesh of P2P LSPs between PEs, broadcast, > > multicast and unknown traffic are not efficiently propagated on the > > physical links between PEs and Ps. > > > > In the VPLS implementation scenario with HSMP LSPs, each PE signals > > a HSMP LSP with itself as a root to all other PEs in the VPLS. > > Thereafter, all broadcast/multicast/unknown traffic from this PE > > will use this HSMP LSP. Unicast traffic from a particular PE (e.g. > > PE1) to another PE (e.g. PE2) will be sent from leaf to root using > > the HSMP LSP where PE2 is the root. > > > > This simplifies the VPLS implementation by: > > - Reducing traffic utilization from broadcast, multicast > > and unknown traffic > > - Reducing the total number of LSPs maintained by each PE > > (i.e. instead of requiring a full mesh of LSPs, now only require one > > HSMP LSP per PE). > > > > This is similar to the idea expressed in draft-key-l2vpn-etree- > > frwk-03.txt (in a more general sense). > > > > What do you think? Would HSMP LSP be suitable for this? > > > > Regards, > > Edward > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:24 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > During IETF 79 Beijing, we made a presentation for HSMP LSP at MPLS > session. > > HSMP LSP has several use cases described in the draft, e.g, time > > synchronization in MPLS network, IPTV scenario, or P2MP PW. It would > > be appreciated if you could give more scenarios for HSMP LSP. Please > > review the draft, and any comments are welcome. > > > > The draft link is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-jounay-mpls- > > mldp-hsmp-01 > > > > Thank you. > > Authors of draft-hsmp. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > >
_______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
