Re: WG last call: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-04.txt

[Indra Widjaja <iwidjaja@research.bell-labs.com>]

Francois:

> At 14:54 06/06/2002 -0500, Indra Widjaja wrote:
> >Francois:
> >
> >Francois Le Faucheur wrote:
> > >
> > > Indra, Ganti,
> > >
> > > I don't believe the current text nor the new proposed text actually exclude
> > > the possibility of running different BC models in a given network, if a
> > > particulat Service Provider wanted to do that for some reason.
> >
> >Just for a clarification, are you saying that a "uniform BC model"
> >(i.e., all LSRs use the same BC) is not required in a given network?
> >or are you saying that a different BC model may be used in a given
> >network as long as the BC is the same for all LSRs?
> 
> I'm saying:
>          - I expect SPs will want to run a single BC model throughout their
> DS-TE domain
>          - thus, I feel we ought to ensure that all implementations have
> one BC model in common
>          - while I don't expect it will be commonly used in practise, I
> don't see a need to exclude running multiple BC models in a given network.

Thanks; you clarified my original question posted a couple of iterations
ago.

indra


> In such situations, it must be understood that overall behaviour may be
> hard to predict and some features will simply not be possible at all (e.g.
> optimisation by head-end in the case of multiple LSP path computation). I
> don't think we should go out of our way to change the spec to allow this,
> but conversely I don't see a need to exclude it.
> 

<rest deleted>