Subject: Re: [L3sm] [l3sm] #16 (draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model): Line card Diversity contraint augmentation suggestions

From: "Ogaki, Kenichi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:34:41 +0900

Hi,

As same comment as issue#15, it is more limited use case that the CE is provider-managed and is a chassis-typed.
I think PE linecard diversity can get the consensus as it's common deployment. However, chassis-typed managed CE is specific for particular service providers. Such a specific requirement should be solved by augmentation.

All the best,
Kenichi

-----Original Message-----
From: L3sm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of l3sm issue tracker
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 5:20 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [L3sm] [l3sm] #16 (draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model): Line card Diversity contraint augmentation suggestions

#16: Line card Diversity contraint  augmentation suggestions

 "linecard-diverse" diversity constraint does not state explicitly whether  CE or PE line card diversity is required. Recommending to rename it to PE-  linecard-diverse. Correspondingly a new CE-linecard-diverse constraint  could be added to also offer this option for the CE.

-- 
-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
-------------------------------------+---
 Reporter:  [email-masked]         |      Owner:  draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-
     Type:  enhancement              |  [email-masked]
 Priority:  minor                    |     Status:  new
Component:  draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-   |  Milestone:
  service-model                      |    Version:
 Severity:  -                        |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
-------------------------------------+---

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/l3sm/trac/ticket/16>
l3sm <https://tools.ietf.org/l3sm/>

_______________________________________________
L3sm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm