RE: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP

["Roberto Mameli (ERI)" <Roberto.Mameli@eri.ericsson.se>]

Nabil,

please see my comment inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nabil Seddigh [mailto:nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 7:13 PM
> To: Joel M. Halpern
> Cc: TE WG
> Subject: Re: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP
> 
> 
> You've made a valid point. However, there is no intention to FORCE 
> the SP to ALWAYS put the 2 classes on the same LSP. The point is
> that in certain cases (refer Jim's & Roberto's emails), an SP may 
> CHOOSE to do this. By restricting the standard, you ensure this 
> option is NOT at the disposal of the SP. 


Good point. I'm exactly trying to state this.


> > IETF experience is that options (particularly very similar 
> > but not identical options that meet the same goals) are 
> > dangerous and counter-productive.  If we really need this option, 
> > there ought to be a clear reason that is not met by the 
> > existing tools.
> 
> Point taken! I think this example is commonly given for RSVP-TE
> vs CR-LDP. 
> 
> However, you appear to have already pre-supposed that we must 
> have 2 different technology solutions (protocol extension) to 
> satisfy the requirements for single-OA E-LSP and multiple-OA 
> E-LSP. What if a single technology solution can satisfy both 
> requirements without undue complexity?
> 


I perfectly agree.


> Best,
> Nabil Seddigh
> nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com


Regards
Roberto