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

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

The key thing that is missing from this debate is the relationship between:
-	public services
-	private services, ie VPNs

SPs would like to integrate their 'Internet' and 'VPN' networks but
currently this is proving difficult....so IMO all future work in this area
ought to recognise/address this issue.

I can see a good solution for the former by aggregation in internal
public-VPNs using L-LSPs (per PHB).

I can't see any good solution for private VPNs when LDP is used (or indeed
unification of private/public VPNs)....I have explained several times why
this is true, so I won't bore you all again.

I can see a potential good solution for private VPN based on E-LSPs....and
again I have provided the reasons on previous mails....and its seems this
could be the unifying solution too.

regards, Neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shai Herzog [mailto:sherzog@hyperchip.com]
> Sent: 04 December 2001 18:31
> To: 'Francois Le Faucheur'; 'te-wg@ops.ietf.org'
> Subject: Re: What we disagree on RE: TE Requirements Draft-ELSP
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Since different OAs are disjoint, and draw from different pools,
> how do you propose we split the single BW parameters among 
> the multiple
> OAs?
> 
> Shai
>