RE: Alternative to draft-ash-mpls-diffserv-te-class-types-00.txt ?

["Choudhury, Sanjaya" <Sanjaya.Choudhury@marconi.com>]

 Hi! Do you mean that with the existing MPLS-DS & MPLS-DS-TE
 mechanisms, end-to-end QoS can not be implemented ?

 As indicated in the section 4 of the draft, all of the real
 parameters that make up the "ClassType" are signaled 
 individually (existing or new TLVs) anyway. Then how does it
 matter, what we call them (Class-Type 0 or Class-Type 1) ??

 Infact, the draft itself indicates [last line of Abstract]
 that its primary purpose is to further improve the
 scalability through the introduction of ClassType. [Which is
 is being address by different existing & upcoming DS-TE
 drafts]. Therefore, I am not sure, what is being achieved
 by the standardization of this new concept "Class-Type" ?

 Thanks,
 sanjay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALSVC [mailto:wlai@att.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 4:49 PM
> To: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Alternative to
> draft-ash-mpls-diffserv-te-class-types-00.txt ?
> 
> 
> For end-to-end connections that span multiple provider networks,
> what are the alternatives (to standardization) for developing
> consistent interoperable end-to-end QoS solutions?  For example,
> would there be an equivalent of circuit-switched toll-quality
> voice in VoIP?
> Thanks, Wai Sum.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Choudhury, Sanjaya [mailto:Sanjaya.Choudhury@marconi.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:40 AM
> To: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Alternative to 
> draft-ash-mpls-diffserv-te-class-types-00.txt ?
> 
> 	2. This draft attempts to standardize the different
> 	user requirements into 6 Class Types, based on current
> 	experience.
> 		a. User's requirement may not fit into one of 
> 		predefined 6 Class-Types
> 
> 		b. I am not sure whether, this information need
> 		to be standardized. [Service Provider-1's "Gold
> 		Service" may be same as Service Provide-2's 
> 		"Bronze Service -and it does not matter!]
> 
>