Re: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com>]

And some packet based equipment would prefer not to use the label for
things like queue selection.

Allowing the solution to be work for E-LSPs or L-LSPs is probably the
right approach.

Jim


On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, David Charlap wrote:

> Nabil Seddigh wrote:
> >
> > I thought I should get this comment in before the -02 version
> > of the Requirements draft emerges. Hopefully the authors will
> > consider the following suggestion:
> >
> > - I think it is useful to put an explicit requirement that the TE
> >   solutions need to support both E-LSP and L-LSP. The way the
> >   draft reads at the moment, it does not come through clearly.
> >   Most of the examples and wording would lead one to believe that
> >   the DS-TE solutions should only focus on L-LSP.
>
> You can't insert this requirement.
>
> Some hardware platforms (especially those using ATM-style backplanes)
> are incapable of implementing E-LSPs.  These platforms can only support
> L-LSPs.  It would be wrong to define DS-TE such that these platforms can
> never be compliant.
>
> -- David
>