[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Closer to a 'unified' ds-te approach ?

To: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Closer to a 'unified' ds-te approach ?
From: Francois Le Faucheur <flefauch@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:16:26 +0100
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011126163829.03950e40@europe.cisco.com>
References: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF8F4DF7@whq-msgusr-02.pit.c omms.marconi.com>


>PS: If it doesn't get announced today I will put it on a public ftp server 
>tommorow morning European time.

While it is percolating its way to the official IETF server, 
draft-lefaucheur-diff-te-proto-01.txt is available from 
ftp-eng.cisco.com/ftp/flefauch

Cheers

Francois

References:
- RE: Closer to a 'unified' ds-te approach ? RE: Is the advertiseme nt ( IGP) of available BW at each pre-emption le vel is a DS-TE- requirem ent ?
  - From: Francois Le Faucheur <flefauch@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Alternative to draft-ash-mpls-diffserv-te-class-types-00.txt ?
Next by Date: RE: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP
Prev by thread: RE: Closer to a 'unified' ds-te approach ? RE: Is the advertiseme nt ( IGP) of available BW at each pre-emption le vel is a DS-TE- requirem ent ?
Next by thread: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-02.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread