Re: ClassType object for Signalling? Routing? Neither?

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

Nabil,

At 11:15 26/02/2002 -0500, Nabil Seddigh wrote:

>Jim Boyle wrote:
> > But the Setup/Hold could now be the Setup/Hold TEClasses.
> >
>
>Interesting idea but I think we would want to stay away from
>redefining the setup/hold priorities as not all MPLS networks
>necessarily want to do TE.
>
> > Here are some of the issues I have with the classtype object
> > in signaling. but most concerning...
> >
> > -) You can get in a situation where a transit node doesn't
> > recognize the class type object and rejects the path message.
> > What is the head end to
>
>Is the intention to allow the CT object to pass through such
>nodes without being rejected?

As discussed in my earlier email, I recommend that:
         - it should be possible to establish a CT0 LSP (ie regular TE 
LSPs) across DSTE-capable and DSTE-incapable LSRs
         - it should not be possible to establish a CT1/CT2/... LSP across 
DSTE-incapable LSRs

The current proposal already achieves that by:
         - signalling CT0 LSPs without a CT object
         - signalling CT1/CT2/... with a CT object whose class-num is of 
the form 0bbbbbbb.

Cheers

Francois

>i.e to signal through the legacy
>part of the network? If so, RSVP allows this. If IANA assigns
>a class-num greater than C0 for the Class-Type object then
>nodes that don't recognize it will simply forward it thru.
>
>---
>Best,
>Nabil Seddigh
>nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com