Re: Moving right along ... Switching Type

[Yangguang Xu <xuyg@lucent.com>]

> 
> > We have two approaches either "traffic-parameters" are used
> > (in SENDER_TSPEC) then i think the Switching Type capability
> > is useless or they aren't then such field could be optionaly
> > used when applicable (some examples are given in the routing
> > document).
> >
> > Wouldn't be the right way to proceed by defining an "unknown"
> > or "unspecified" value used when "traffic-parameters" are
> > included within the Path Message and optional use the ones
> > proposed in the current version of the specification when they
> > aren't. This field is thus optional and MUST only be used when
> > traffic parameters are not defined. I think this solves both
> > approaches.
> 
> Agreed.

When a hybrid NE sees GMPLS (different C-types from MPLS) messages, it knows the
LSP is not for conventional data LSP. So there is no confusion about
conventional MPLS data LSPs and GMPLS circuit LSPs without Switching Type.
Furthermore, if you have "traffic-parameters", Switching Type is useless, as we
agreed. So, defining "unknown", "unspecified" is not necessary, and neither is
Switching Type.

Yangguang