Re: ClassType object for Signalling? Routing? Neither?

[Nabil Seddigh <nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com>]

I would say that (3) is not desirable. Ideally (2) is the cleanest
solution. However since the "Unreserved BW" TLV has been redefined
to carry bw info per TE class instead of per-premption priority, 
then (1) is an acceptable compromise.

Nabil Seddigh


> The specific question that we have for the WG is the following:
> Would it be preferable to:
> 
> (1) Keep it as in the draft with ClassType object in signalling and
> inferred TEClasses in the IGP.
> 
> (2) Keep the ClassType object in the signalling, but also add additional
> information in the IGP to communicate throughout the TE domain which nodes
> are DS-TE capable, and perhaps some limited amount of additional
> information.
> 
> (3) Use inferred TEClasses in both the signalling and the IGP (e.g. no new
> objects, just semantics).
> 
> Briefly, should we add explicit DS-TE information such as ClassType to:
> (1) Signalling only
> (2) Signalling and Routing
> (3) Neither
> 
> regards,
> 
> Jim