[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-01.txt
- To: "Darek Skalecki" <dareks@nortelnetworks.com>
- Subject: Re: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-01.txt
- From: Francois Le Faucheur <flefauch@cisco.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:31:50 +0200
- Cc: tnadeau@cisco.com, flefauch@cisco.com, martin.tatham@bt.com, telkamp@gblx.net, dcooper@gblx.net, jboyle@level3.net, luca@level3.net, luyuanfang@att.com, gash@att.com, wlai@att.com, pete.hicks@coreexpress.net, angela.chiu@celion.com, btownsend@tenornetworks.com, te-wg@ops.ietf.org
- Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:44:47 -0700
- Envelope-to: te-wg-data@psg.com
Darek,
taking this discussion onto the TEWG list:
At 15:12 19/06/2001 -0400, Darek Skalecki wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The requirements draft is really well written. I have however a concern
>with respect to preemption between/within class-types (Section 2.5).
>Basically, what governs whether preemptee should be chosen from our
>class-type or another class-type.
>
>To illustrate my point, the following example is taken from the document
>but is extended with priorities.
>>
>>
>> As an example, let's consider the case described in section 2.2
>> where the following bandwidth constraints are configured:
>> - DS-TE never routes more than say 70% of EF on a given link
>> - DS-TE never routes more than 100% of EF+BE on that link.
>>
>> Let's assume that DS-TE has actually established at a given time:
>> - 50% worth of EF TE-LSPs and
>Assume 30% is at priority 0 and 20% at priority 8
>>
>> - 50% worth of BE TE-LSPs.
>Assume all 50% is at priority 2.
>>
>> Let's also assume that a new EF TE-LSP worth 10% now needs to be
>> established and contends for this link.
>Assume this new EF TE-LSP wants resources at priority 1. Question now
>becomes: should this new EF TE-LSP preempt some of the BE TE-LSPs which
>are all at priority 2 or should it preempt some of the EF TE-LSPs at
>priority 8?, i.e. should it preempt from its own class-type or another
>class-type?.
good point. this needs to be defined.
>I believe that since preemption is needed then the lowest possible
>priority preemptee should be chosen even if it comes from our class-type.
I personally agree. Let's hear other views.
> I believe we should state a requirement surrounding where the preemptee
> is chosen from or else it will be open to interpretation and lead to
> confusion.
Yes, we should cover that point in the next version.
Thanks
Francois
>Any comments/views?
>Darek
>
>
>--
>Darek Skalecki
>Nortel
>(613) 765-2252
>
>
_______________________
Francois Le Faucheur
Development Engineer, IOS Layer 3 Services
Cisco Systems
Office Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 19
Mobile : +33 6 89 108 159
Fax: +33 4 97 23 26 26
Email: flefauch@cisco.com
_________________________________________________________________
Cisco Systems Europe
Domaine Green Side
400, Avenue de Roumanille
Bātiment T3
06 410 BIOT
SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS
FRANCE
_________________________________________________________________