Re:How to progress DSTE, particularly p -> TE-Class[i] = {CT, p}

[raymond zhang <zhangr@info.net>]

Hi,

Option 2 below seems to be a better choice to address this in a timely
fashion.

Regards,
Raymond

   * To: <mailto:te-wg@ops.ietf.org>te-wg@ops.ietf.org
   * Subject: How to progress DSTE, particularly p -> TE-Class[i] = {CT, p}
   * From: Jim Boyle <<mailto:jboyle@pdnets.com>jboyle@pdnets.com>
   * Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 01:03:06 -0400 (EDT)

----------

One issue that draft-sivabalan-diff-te-bundling-02.txt highlights is that
there may be text in existing RFCs and I-Ds for MPLS/TE which address how
to support priority preemption between LSPs.

draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-04.txt redefines the reservable bandwidth
available at priority "p" to be the reservable bandwidth available for
TE-Class "i" where that is defined as:

     TE-Class[i]  <-->  < CTc , preemption p >

Where this mapping is defined locally.

This creates a problem, as improvements to the base of MPLS, for
instance bundled links refer to how to address the particulars of that
improvement with regards to priority, would also likely beof use e
might want to in a diff-serv TE environment as well.

It is obvious that one should assume that where one reads about "p" they
should be thinking TE-Class[i], however it would be best for this to be
explicitly stated somewhere.

Before the DSTE proto draft and the BC models progress to WG last call,
I'd like to see this resolved.

There are 3 approaches that I've heard suggested.

1) Address this in the diff-te-proto draft. State that for the IGP and
RSVP RFCs, as well as technologies that improve upon them
(e.g. FA-LSP, link bundling, etc..), in order to be diff-serv TE
compliant, you need to map all references of "p" to TE-Class[i]

2) Address this in a parallel document to diff-te-proto, and let
diff-te-proto progress to IESG before this is resolved.  This parallel
document will somehow generalize "p" in base documents, and diff-te-proto
will fit on-top of that (somehow)

3) Generalize "p" in the base documents, RFC3209, the igp-traffic drafts,
all of the other MPLS/TE and GMPLS drafts as well.  For the record, I am
not personally in favor of this approach.

Please advise how you propose we move forward with this,

thanks,

Jim