Hi, I'd go further and suggest that we should recommend bidirectional LSPs as the preferred approach, regardless of composite links.
Tony On Jan 30, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote: > Hi Lizhong, > > As a result of this discussion the RTGWG will add another requirement where > the solution should be able to indicate to a composite link that both the > directions of a bidirectional LSP must be bound to the same component link. > > This is indeed what we want for 1588. We will also include a pointer to this > in the next revision. > > Cheers, Manav > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 6.10 AM > To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [TICTOC] Transporting PTP messages (1588) over MPLS Networks > > > Hi Manav, > I see the discussion at RTGWG, it is good. > Share within TICTOC: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg03181.html > > Thanks > Lizhong > > > "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <[email protected]> wrote on 2011-01-28 > 08:09:50: > > > 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 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is > solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is > confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and > are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If > you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the > message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual > sender. > This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. > > _______________________________________________ > TICTOC mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
