Hi,
Contrary to appearances, this discussion may be making progress.
JP said,
> > And I do not see why specifying the signalling method would be a problem
> > at all. If a SP requires a contiguous LSP to avoid its LSP to be
> > stitched along its path and potentially reoptimized without any HE
> > control, specifying that the LSP must be contiguous (or not) is indeed
> > the right method.
There are three issues there.
1. Is it a problem to specify the desired/required signaling method?
There are two answers.
a. There is no technical problem with providing this function.
b. There are plenty of fears about the consequences of providing
this function. Dimitri and Vishal have listed some.
2. Can a HE reasonably require control of functions such as
re-optimization?
The answer to this would appear to be "yes". But note that this
requirement surely applies
to all signaling methods. It happens to be the case that the option is
meaningless in
contiguous signaling because the LSP cannot be optimized downstream of the
HE (using
existing make-before-break techniques - but who knows what the future holds?).
So here is a good example of a functional requirement ("re-optimization
only under
head-end control") that the head-end should be able to signal. You should
make sure this
is clear in section 7.9.
3. Is there a reason to require contiguous signaling rather than some
other form?
I still don't see one.