Re: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP

[Francois Le Faucheur <flefauch@cisco.com>]

Jim,

At 13:10 16/11/2001 -0500, Jim Boyle wrote:

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

This is exactly why the current "Requirements" document already allows 
DS-TE operations over E-LSPs (with a single OA per E-LSP). We do not need 
to change anything for this in the requirements document. Upcoming 
Requirements draft clarifies this already.

Cheers

Francois

>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
> >

_________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________