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

["Naidu, Venkata" <Venkata.Naidu@Marconi.com>]

Balazs:

  Please see my comments inline...

-> I suppose the idea behind higher priority for control 
-> traffic is to assure proper link-state routing operation in 
-> sever overloads.

  Let me re-phrase my question. Can I send *some* control
  traffic on CT3/4/5 (which I think is appropriate).
  For example, some very low priority control traffic can be
  best matched to CT 5 (BE). The *requirement* to include
  all *control traffic* in CT 6 (High Priority, Low loss,
  with allowed preemption) is not appropriate.

  I think, the draft jeopardizing data traffic my making *all*
  control traffic to CT6.

--Venkata Naidu  
 

-> Balazs
-> 
-> 
-> "Naidu, Venkata" wrote:
-> > 
-> > Wai Sum:
-> > 
-> >   I didn't understand why control traffic is so different?
-> >   Draft recommends, no preemption of LSPs and/or transport
-> >   links across CTs, except for control-traffic CT. (Why?)
-> > 
-> >  * I mentioned my concern about CT6 because, control traffic is
-> >    also *some data* in IP sense. For good example, I can send
-> >    OSPF/RSVP Hellos in one particular CT and all other Control
-> >    messages (updates etc) in other CTs. Don't you agree?
->