Re: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP

[Nabil Seddigh <nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com>]

David,

I hope you are not suggesting that the standards not talk about 
E-LSP just because some platforms cannot support it! 

The way the requirements read today, it PRECLUDES folks who
are E-LSP capable from utilizing DS-TE. 

The DS-TE requirement needs to be written in such a way that all 
options are possible:

1. It should allow use with L-LSP only,
2. It should allow use with E-LSP only
3. It should allow use with networks that deploy both L-LSP and E-LSP 

The mpls-diffserv-09 draft has just been approved as a proposed 
standard in the MPLS WG. It would appear to me that DS-TE should
be consistent with this soon-to-be-rfc. It clearly highlights
E-LSP as a viable option.

Best,
Nabil


> 
> 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

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