Re: New draft on Extra class LSP

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

vishal,

[snip]

> In the latter case, however, the only way any traffic could use the
> reserved resources would be for one to setup a low-priority, pre-emptible
> LSP using those resources, with the distinction that these particular
> low-priority LSPs are not subject to pre-emption unless a working
> LSP that needs to use those reserved resources fails (This what
> Shiomoto-san more accurately calls "extra-LSP".)
the point is to have a network wide homogeneous allocation
of resources, starting to have allocation based on the
reason why the lower priority lsp can be preempted leads you
to the issue of how many of such conditions can we have
in a network ? or do you plan to start defining one class
of lsp and priority per such event ? the idea behind the
"re-use" of these preemptible resources is to abstract its
complexity not to spread it network wide - this while what
we have today works perfectly -

> So let's call an "extra-traffic LSP" an "extra-traffic LSP" :-) and let's
> clearly define "extra traffic" in the terminology doc., because I don't
> think the definition, as it stands, in precise enough, unfortunately.
the proposed definition (in the terminology i-d) is generic
enough to cover any cases of extra-traffic that we may
encounter, as said before in the "e2e" signaling i-d this
definition is applied in this "e2e" context, there is here
absolutely no reason (for the time being) to change the
definition in the terminology document due to its usage
in the signaling i-d - the only reason to change a def.
in the terminology i-d would be that it doesn't cover the
case of a concept developed in one of the subsequent i-d's
not the other way around

thanks,
- dimitri.