RE: DSTE-PROTO: Question/Comments on:Empty TE-Class Map ; Consecutive CTs

["Choudhury, Sanjaya" <Sanjaya.Choudhury@marconi.com>]

Hi! Comments inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) [mailto:flefauch@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 9:00 AM
> To: Choudhury, Sanjaya
> Cc: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: DSTE-PROTO: Question/Comments on:Empty TE-Class Map ;
> Consecutive CTs
> 
> 
> Sanjaya,
> 
> >> > Would the proposed changes address that point?
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 	I think the proposed changes should address the issue
> >> 	of empty TE-Class maps.
> >> 
> >>
> 
> I am not following you. I am assuming that "empty TE-Class maps" means
> that all of the 8 possible TE-classes are configured to "unused". Is
> this what you mean as well?
> If yes, then the proposed changes discuss exactly that. What 
> do you see
> is still missing?
> If not, what do you mean? the case where the operator has not yet
> configured anything?
> 
	I think the proposed changes _does_ address the issue
	of empty TE-Class maps. [Should have used "does" instead of
	"should" :)]
>  
> 
> >> > 
> >> > Would the proposed changes address that point?
> >> > 
> >> 	Proposed changes should address the issue of non-consecutive 
> >> 	CTs.
> 

	Proposed changes _does_ address the issue of non-consecutive 
	CTs. [Used the wrong word again..]


> But, as I've axplained, I can't really see an issue there.
> It seems quite OK for you to use CT0 and CT7 if that is what you want,
> regardless of the BC model.
> 
> Text on TE-class mapping currently indicates that there is no
> restriction on which CT you use in the TE-class mapping, so 
> we are clear
> here.
> With respect to IGP advertisement of unreserved bandwidth, this has no
> impact (you always advertise the 8 values for each TE-class). 
> So we are
> clear here.
> With respect to IGP advertisment of BCs, I have proposed to 
> enhance the
> text so it makes it clear that you would then have to advertise BC0,
> BC1, ...BC7. So we would be clear here.
> Same thing re IGP advertisment of LOMs. 
> 
> I think that is all we have to say. No?
> 
> >> 
> >> 	Few suggestions/comments:
> >> 		1. It will be helpful to add an example to the 
> >> RDBC Model
> >> 		   draft, that deals with a non-consecutive CT scenario.
> >> 
> 
> If text covers the case clearly already, why would we need to add a
> specific example?
> Also, we are trying to keep the proto document independent of the BC
> model.

		As I indicated, this suggestion was for the RDBC Model
		draft. Thought, an example (a scenario) would contribute
		to readers understanding.
		
> 
> >> 		2. Adding a new CT, in the middle of two existing CTs 
> >> 		   may affect the existing LSPs using existing CTs. Need
> >> 		   spell out explicitly ?
> 
> Well, changing any LSP parameters (eg bandwidth), or adding 
> an LSP with
> higher preemption, may affect existing LSPs with DSTE or with 
> TE today.
> I don't think we need to discuss that specifically.
> 
> >> 
> >> 		3. I am not sure, if any of the formula 
> >> presented in RDBC 
> >> 		   drafts need to be updated to handle the case of 
> >> 		   non-consecutive CT (and BC?) case. 
> 
> I don't think so. I think formulas are applicable as they are. 
> It just happens that, for a given value of b, "Reserved(CTb,q) for all
> values of q (0<=q<=7).
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Francois
> 
> 
> 
> >> 	Thanks,
> >> 	sanjay
> >> 	
> >> > Thanks
> >> > 
> >> > Francois
> >> > 
> >> > >> 
> >> > >> Thanks,
> >> > >> sanjay	
> >> > >> 
> >> > >> 			
> >> > >> 
> >> > >> 
> >> > 
> >> 
>