Lizhong, > [Lizhong] I mean the LAG between two end-points, > not MC-LAG. E.g, one LAG interface with physical link > A & B between two end-points, it is possible that the forward > path will go through A, and backward path will go through B, > then the physical path is not symmetric. If I understand correctly, > you just assume the transport delay on link A & B are the
On an ordinary lag, unless it's a MC-LAG this can be assumed to be more or less the same. > same, but this is not always true, especially for the composite > link defined in RTGWG (draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement). I quickly glanced through this draft and these can imo be easily avoided by defining a new link type - Composite link, in the link type sub-TLV of Link TLV in OSPF [RFC3630]. Such links MUST be avoided for setting up the PTP LSPs. Similarly the extended IS reachability TLV could be extended for IS-IS to avoid composite links. One could also use coloring to avoid these links, but this would entail manual configuration which may not be desirable. Cheers, Manav _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
