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

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

Nabil,

At 11:00 03/12/2001 -0500, Nabil Seddigh wrote:
>Francois,
>
> > >   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
> > >
> > Excluding it would be a useless restrictions. Would it not?
> > Can you agree to the proposal of updating REQTS to allow support of (ii).
>
>Agreed. The DS-TE solutions should allow for option (ii).

great.

> >
> > Your breakdown misses part of the discussion we've had which is precisely
> > while I splitted that case earlier.
>
>The reason I had issues with your earlier breakdown was that it
>got into the CSPF mechanism employed and that is proprietary.
>IMHO, the lines below capture the two sub-choices better.
>
> > (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,...)
>
>Yes, indeed, I believe we have been arguing for inclusion of
>(iiia) all along.

We understand you're after (iiia). My question was about (iiib). I think 
your words above implyi you're agreeing with the proposal for (iiib), but 
can you be explicit about it. Let me repeat the question:
"So again, leaving aside (iiia) for now, can you agree that (iiib) should 
not specifically be added to REQTS draft for now until SPs have expressed 
the requirement for it?"

thanks

Francois

>Best,
>Nabil