[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Regarding the DiffServ-TE drafts(lefaucheur,boyel,kompella,ash,bitar)
Hi! I Now there are 4 different documented approaches related
to support of DiffServ-TE by IGPs (lefaucheur,boyel,kompella,
ash,bitar). As far as I know, the last round of discussion on this
issue, ended without any consensus. I thought it may not be
bad idea to have another round of discussion.
In my opinion, we can broadly divide the discussions into
two areas:
(a) Whether (and How) to advertise the per-class(/type)
bandwidth information via IGPs
(b) Pre-emption
To limit the scope of discussion, in this thread, let us discuss
the first issue only.
Here are some of my observations and thoughts (If my observations
from existing drafts are incorrect please correct me).
Your coments will be appreciated.
Thanks,
sanjay
Q1. Do we need to advertise the per-class (/type) bandwidth
information via IGP ?
-As far as I understand, two of the drafts (ash,boyel?) prefer
not to advertise per-class bandwidth info for scalability reasons.
-In my opinion, it is better to advertise the per-class bandwidth
info via IGP. This information, will help the path computation
module to do a better job. And one can handle, the scalability
problems, via different mechanisms (as illustrated by other
drafts).
Q2. If we need to advertise the per-class(/type) bandwidth
information, Should the domain administrator have control
over the granularity of the information get advertised in his
domain. ?
-In my opinion, the domain administrator should have control
the per-class BW info that gets advertised in his domain via
a MIB (bandwidths for classes that are not advertised can be
folded into the un-reserved bandwidth associated with the link)
Q3. How do we advertise the per-class(/type) bandwidth info?
(a) 1-1 mapping with diffserv classes
(b) m-1 mapping with diffserv classes (lefaucheur)
-In my opinion, 1-1 mapping is simpler and achieves the purpose
without introducing new concepts (class-type).
-1-1 mapping
-one of the drafts (bitar) explicitly advertises the BW
associated with the class
-the other draft(kompella) overloads the diffserv-class
with the priority information.
-which approach is better ?
Thanks,
sanjay
- Prev by Date:
FW: [IP-Optical] draft-team-tewg-restore-hierarchy-00.txt: Request for input on restoration requirements
- Next by Date:
RE: Regarding the DiffServ-TE drafts(lefaucheur,boyel,kompella,ash,b itar)
- Prev by thread:
RE: Regarding the DiffServ-TE drafts(lefaucheur,boyel,kompella,ash,b itar)
- Next by thread:
RE: Regarding the DiffServ-TE drafts(lefaucheur,boyel,kompella,ash,bitar)
- Index(es):