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

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

Shai,

This message focuses on otion (ii).

Based on the conversation we had Yesterday in SLC, my understanding is that:
         - there was one operating assumption that I had not made clear for 
when (ii) would be used which is that option (ii) would not be mixed with 
option (iv) [aka L-LSPs] for the same OAs.
         - with this assumption being made explicit you agree that option 
(ii) is viable and would not create any "meltdown"
         - you would now not have an objection to the DS-TE REQST draft 
stating that :
                 * there is currently no established clear requirement for 
option (ii)
                 * but that a DSTE solution may support option (ii)  [since 
this comes for free]
                 * clarifying that option (ii) is not a "general" solution 
but may be useful and viable provided a number of "operational" assumptions 
are met (eg. assumption clarified above).

Is this right?

thanks

Francois


At 18:36 07/12/2001 -0500, Shai Herzog wrote:
>Francois,
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >If I understand correctly, this is where we stand :
> >         - Nabil is saying, let's allow (ii) and (iiia)
> >         - Shai is saying, let's not allow (ii) nor (iiia)
> >         - Francois is saying, let's allow (ii) but not (iiia).
>
>Your correct regarding my position. I think the "Single BW or CSPF" doesn't
>exist and has no meaning (other than random or arbitrary). Multiple BW/CSPF
>exist, but pose horrendous danger to network stability (one that can be
>lurking and not obvious before dissaster strikes).
>However, I believe in democracy, so I would correct the "not allow" to "not
>sanction and warn against". If someone wants to drive into the wall, at
>least he/she won't be able to come back and blame us for designing a faulty
>and dangerous standard.
>
> >At least, my religion is more middle-of-the-ground than either
> >of yours. '^)
>
>Let me see. Lets think religion... So, I believe in evolution, you believe
>in a combination of evolution and creationism, and Nabil believes in pure
>creationism. In this case, I like being on the extreme side ;-)
>
>Shai
>
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Francois
> >