Subject: RE: BANDWIDTH RESERVATION - RE: Announcing draft-ietf-mpls-diff-e xt-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 04:01:40 -0600

> So, all in all, I still think:
> 	- you can do pretty good and label-efficient with Mode 1 
> 	- you can do the ideal per-OA thing with Mode 2. 
> 	- Mode 3 does not have a strong application in between these 2.
> 	- there are already quite a lot of options in our spec...
> 
> Do you still see a strong application for Mode 3 which would justify
> extensions in the MAP but also extensions in all the error codes and
> procedures (today we rely on normal RSVP error handling to 
> signal rejection
> because of admission control)?
> 
> Opinions from others?
> 
I don't think that the adding traffic parameters to individual 
codepoints in signalling warrants the complexity - this was my 
primary reason I was opposing whole concept of E-LSPs while 
back (you cannot route the classes independently if you bunch 
them together). You can do the "right thing" using L-LSPs with
parameters and avoid the otherwise resulting mess.

Pasi

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:29:52 +0100

Pasi and all,

>parameters and avoid the otherwise resulting mess.

As you already know, I am 100% in line with Pasi's statement above. 
This is yet another little option which makes interoperability a little
more difficult/unlikely. And we've only heard one voice requesting this
(albeit nice and clear).
So as you've noticed, the recently issued draft-ietf-mpls-diff-ext-04.txt
does not contain the corresponding additional extensions. My proposal is to
finalised that approach in Adelaide unless we hear more voices on the alias.

Francois

_________________________________________________________________
Francois Le Faucheur   
Development Engineer, IOS Layer 3 Services 
Cisco Systems 
Office Phone:   	+33 4 92 96 75 64
Home Office Phone:     +33 4 92 94 00 78
Mobile :               +33 6 89 108 159
Vmail:                 +33 1 58 04 62 66
Fax:                   +33 4 92 96 79 08
Email:          	[email-masked]
_________________________________________________________________
Petra B - Les Lucioles - 291, rue Albert Caquot - 06560 Valbonne - France
_________________________________________________________________

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:23:28 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Francois Le Faucheur write
> finalised that approach in Adelaide unless we hear more voices on the alias.

Francois,

Even if you don't go in the direction of adding the individual traffic
parameters and making them optional as I had requested, thank you for
giving the request serious consideration.  I suspect that if we don't
allow this as an option we may have to revisit this later.  Ultimately
the decision to allow an optional parameter such as this goes with the
consensus of the WG.

Best Regards,

Curtis