Re: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com>]

Francois - if your question is:

-----------------------
Would service providers wish to potentially send more than one, OA down an
E-LSP, which makes use of class-type specific routing information?
-----------------------

The answer is yes.

Picking on poor voice, one OA might be signalling traffic, one might be
VoIP data.  They might go into different queues.  They might not need to
be on seperate LSPs.  The LSP might draw upon resources of a non-default
class-type.

Hope that's not too fancy ;)

Jim

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Francois Le Faucheur wrote:

> At 10:04 16/11/2001 -0500, Nabil Seddigh wrote:
> >I thought I should get this comment in before the -02 version
> >of the Requirements draft emerges.
>
> just in time...
>
> >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.
>
> That's because the requirements indeed assumes that DSTE will be deployed
> using L-LSPs (or E-LSPs but on which traffic from a single OA is carried).
> soon-to-be-released-02 already has text clarifying this.
> When deploying DS-TE, the SPs I spoke to wanted not only to do per-class
> admission control but also per-class routing, which normally requires use
> of L-LSPs (or E-LSPs transporting a single OA).
>
> Is allowing operations of DS-TE over E-LSPs which transport a single OA
> what you're after (in which case it's already there)?
>
> Or are you suggesting operations of DS-TE over E-LSPs which transport
> multiple OAs?
> In that case, what are the Service Provider requesting this?
>
> Could these SPs clarify whether:
>          -  they would use this to do per-class admission control but not
> do per-class routing (would it not be a pity to deploy all this
> sophistication and have voice not being able to take its shortest path
> simply because there is no more resources for data on a link)?
>          -  they expect the routers to do fancy things like
> dynamic/on-the-fly mapping of OAs on various LSPs : compute path for
> differnet OAs separately and then if they happen to be the same at one
> point in time push them onto the same LSP? then what happens if later on,
> one OA gets preempted and not the other one: remap one OA on another LSP
> with some other OAs?
>
> Thanks
>
> Francois
>
>
> >Best
> >Nabil Seddigh
> >nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com
>
> _________________________________________________________
> 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
> Domaine Green Side
> 400, Avenue de Roumanille
> 06 410  Biot - Sophia Antipolis
> FRANCE
> _________________________________________________________
>
>