Re: What we disagree on RE: TE Requirements Draft-ELSP

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com>]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Shai Herzog wrote:

> At 1010 AM 04/12/2001, Francois Le Faucheur wrote
> >Nabil and Shahram,
> >
> >The one option we disagree on is
> >(iiia) Using E-LSPs with traffic from multiple OAs with multiple BW and
> >single value for all other attributes (preemption, CT, affinity...).
>
> I for one disagree that E-LSPs with Multiple OAs and single BW are
> technically (or theoretically) sound. Not to use the cliche of apples
> and oranges, pretty much it is equivalent to:
>
> Given a box, how many watermelons and cherries can you fit inside it?

783 for me, using bing cherries, 1328 using marascheno.

>
> Since different OAs are disjoint, and draw from different pools,
> how do you propose we split the single BW parameters among the multiple
> OAs?

it's application specific, if you even can.  Of course if your application
doesn't fit this mold, then use L-LSPs.  Certainly simulations are better
behaved using L-LSPs.  Some network architectures lend themselves handily
to having a subset of OAs on different LSPs, though.



>
> Shai
>