ccamp-10----Page:3
1 2 3 4 5
|
Two scenarios Scenario 1: per-AS TE LSP Path computation - No impact on RSVP/IGP scalability, Semi-dynamic, Small set of protocol extensions required, No optimal end to end path Diverse path computation not always possible (Path protection, load balancing) Call set up failure, Support of end to end reoptimization (timer/event driven) Support of FRR Bypass for ASBR protection Scenario 2: distributed path computation server No impact on RSVP/IGP scalability, Dynamic, - Implementation more complex, Optimal end to end path Diverse path computation always possible (Path protection, load balancing) No call set up failure (not more than with a single area/AS) Support of end to end reoptimization Support of FRR Bypass for ASBR protection TE LSP local protection recommended Scenario 1 and 2 are both compliant with the set of requirements defined in draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-00.txt draft-vasseur-inter-AS-TE-01.txt IETF-58 Minneapolis |