RE: More comments/questions on DS-TE solution draft

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com>]

ĝOn Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Francois Le Faucheur wrote:

> Jim,
>
> At 12:30 17/06/2002 -0400, Jim Boyle wrote:
> >On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Francois Le Faucheur wrote:

...

> >
> >
> >If we start to use the BC sub-TLV to mean "I'm DSTE capable" - should
> >we maybe add a field to that effect - or just add another TLV to that
> >effect?
>
> We could certainly do that. This is the approach of explicitely signaling
> "DS-TE capability" on new LSRs. The drawback I see of such an approach is
> that it would result in some additional information being always advertised
> in the IGP for ever and ever, just to resolve a temporary migration issue.
>
> The approach currently proposed is more like inferring "DS-TE incapability"
> of old LSRs. It forces use to use an existing sub-TLV in a particular way
> during transition, but the benefit is that once LSRs are all upgraded you
> are back to a minimised IGP signaling ie you can leave with ONLY
> advertising the 8bw values of "Unreserved BW " sub-TLV and that's it.
> Again, because we had so much pressure to minimise IGP signaling, I favor
> the current approach.
>
> No?

yes - I can see a migration w/o the BC sub-TLV, but if one must, then
right, it'll do.


>
> Francois
>
>