Concerning MPLS paths

Saqib Ilyas msaqib at gmail.com
Tue Apr 28 04:19:17 CDT 2009


How about when William says "LSPs are not static." Does he mean "not static"
as in path may change, or that the bandwidth reserved for the LSP may
change? And thanks Marshall for the reply.

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 5:41 PM, William McCall <william.mccall at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Well, yes (if you don't count the additional traffic of signalling/routing
>> protocols, label imposition, etc) but consider the fact that topologies
>> change and routing will tend to change the total traffic handled through a
>> node. LSPs are not static unless you use TE tunnels. Remember that labels
>> are Forwarding Equivalency Classes and that translates into subnets (whether
>> they're subnets in a L3 vpn or part of the P network) and the routing is
>> still handled through an IGP or BGP.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> --WJM IV
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Saqib Ilyas <msaqib at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone
>>> In the context of a single service provider network running MPLS, if a
>>> number of bandwidth constrained LSPs are passing through a particular
>>> node
>>> and the sum of the bandwidth constraints for the LSPs is X Mb/s, then is
>>> X
>>> the upper bound on the traffic through that node, or is it sometimes
>>> exceeded as well?
>>> Thanks and best regards
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Muhammad Saqib Ilyas
> PhD Student, Computer Science and Engineering
> Lahore University of Management Sciences
>



-- 
Muhammad Saqib Ilyas
PhD Student, Computer Science and Engineering
Lahore University of Management Sciences



More information about the NANOG mailing list