Re: could we agree on this ? Fwd: RE: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP

[Francois Le Faucheur <flefauch@europe.cisco.com>]

At 11:26 30/11/2001 -0500, Nabil Seddigh wrote:
>Francois,
>
>One key item of note. In an earlier email, you had stated that
>Nabil/Sudhakar asked for option (3). This is not quite accurate.

that's why I updated the breakdown in 4 options.

>We had argued for the ability to signal BW for multiple OAs on
>a single LSP. In addition, we argued for the ability to advertise
>BW for multiple OAs (classes) in the IGP. How the CSPF is done
>is a proprietary matter. It is not governed by the standards!

We're not talking about standardising CSPF.

Cheers
Francois

>Best,
>Nabil
>
>
>
> >
> > 3) using E-LSPs with traffic from multiple OAs each with their own SPF
> > ======================================================================
> > This is the option I proposed to keep out of the Reqts draft for now. This
> > is also the option you described above as "practically very complicated,
> > since it requires dynamic aggregation and splitting of OAs."  Can we agree
> > to keep this out of REQTS draft?
> >
> > 2) using E-LSPs with traffic from multiple OAs but using single CSPF
> > =====================================================================
> > I think we actually need to break this up in 2 cases:
> >
> > 2a) using E-LSPs with traffic from multiple OAs but using single CSPF and
> > SINGLE bandwidth
> > =============================================