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

["Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALSVC" <wlai@att.com>]

There are different types of control traffic for various purposes.
Control traffic that are critical to network health (such as for
routing and network management) must be able to get through under
all network conditions to keep the network up.
If, as you described below, a control packet can be treated as
"data" not directly related to overall network health, then
certainly it can be embedded in other class types.
Thanks, Wai Sum.

-----Original Message-----
From: Naidu, Venkata [mailto:Venkata.Naidu@Marconi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:53 AM
To: 'Balazs Szviatovszki'
Cc: Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALSVC; te-wg@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Alternative to
draft-ash-mpls-diffserv-te-class-types-00.txt ?


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?
->