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

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

Nabil and all,

>In this regard, I would suggest that your options are actually:
>
>   i) Using E-LSPs with traffic from a single OA
>  ii) Using E-LSPs with traffic from multiple OAs with single BW
>  iii) Using E-LSPs with traffic from multiple OAs with multiple BW
>   iv) Using L-LSP
>
>There seems to be prior agreement that options (i) and (iv) are
>required.

So let's record that we can agree on the proposal to update REQTS draft to 
allow support for (i), unless we hear other views.
(iv) is already there.

>The open questions seem to be whether or not (ii)

We need to be more specific on (ii). I believe we have established that:
         - (ii) can be supported without any protocol extensions. Whether 
we put it in the REQTS document or not, it will not affect the DSTE 
protocol extensions and it can be implemented in a head-end LSR. As I said 
earlier, it comes for free from a "protocol" viewpoint
         - a valid scenario has been described that would make use of (ii).
Excluding it would be a useless restrictions. Would it not?
Can you agree to the proposal of updating REQTS to allow support of (ii).


>and (iii) are required.

Your breakdown misses part of the discussion we've had which is precisely 
while I splitted that case earlier. Bandwidth is just one of the Traffic 
Trunk attributes. Based on the thread I think it is useful to split (iii) into:
         (iiia) Using E-LSPs with traffic from multiple OAs with multiple 
BW and single value for all other attributes (preemption, CT, affinity...)
         (iiib) Using E-LSPs with traffic from multiple OAs with multiple 
BW and multiple values for all other attributes (preemption, CT,...)

Those two cases do require different protocol extensions (eg signal 
multiple preemtion/CT/affinity).

I thought we may be able to agree on (iiib). For example , I understand 
that while Sharham felt (iiia) should be added he agreed (iiib) should not.
So again, leaving aside (iiia) for now, can you agree that (iiib) shoudl 
not specifically be added to REQTS draft for now until SPs have expressed 
the requirement for it?

Cheers

Francois

>Kind Regards
>Nabil