RE: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP

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

At 11:07 19/11/2001 -0500, Choudhury, Sanjaya wrote:

>Hi Francois! Are you suggesting that we should restrict
>the PHBs being carried on a single E-LSP to a single OA??

Sanjay,

I'm saying:
         - if I don't want to do TE in my network, then I would use E-LSPs 
with as many OAs as I can fit on them.
         - if I want to do aggregate TE in my network, then I would use 
E-LSPs with as many OAs as I can fit on them. Then I am doing aggregate 
CSPF and aggregate CAC.
         - if I want to do per-class TE in my network, then I would use 
L-LSPs (or use E-LSPs with a single OA per E-LSP, ie transport only the BAs 
of one OA ). Then I am doing per-OA CSPF and per-OA CAC.

Cheers

Francois

>Thanks,
>sanjay
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Francois Le Faucheur [mailto:flefauch@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:35 AM
> > To: Jim Boyle
> > Cc: David Charlap; TE WG
> > Subject: Re: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP
> >
> >
> > 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
> > _________________________________________________________
> >
> >

_________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________