Subject: RE: PWE3 new WG items?

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:41:35 -0800 (PST)

Hi Ben,

[snip]

>
> Therefore IMO the signalling of PW QoS has one of two solutions:
>
> 1) Add PW signalling to CR-LDP (although this would be the easiest solution,
CR-LDP has been deprecated).

>
> 2) Add PW signalling to RSVP-TE.
>

For the purpose of PW QoS, this is reasonable. Note that the
MPLS WG has 2 defined mechanisms for transport LSP setup:
  - LDP
  - RSVP-TE

Of these RSVP-TE is used primarily for QoS/TE and Fast Reroute. LDP on the
other hand is deemed easier to configure and manage when TE is not a
requirement.

There is no reason why PWE setup cannot follow a similar model:
  - LDP for PW signaling without QoS
  - RSVP-TE for PW signaling with QoS

rahul

> Neither of which require PW specific QoS signalling mechanism because
> adding PW specific QoS signalling mechanisms (to LDP, CR-LDP or RSVP-TE)
> is not necessary IMO and would only lead to increased complexity/opex.
>
>
> Ben
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>

---

From: Ping Pan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:30:17 -0800

Ben,

You first said,

> I'm not suggesting people start over (although that is obviously one possible approach), however as I see it:
> ...

Then you added,

> 1) Add PW signalling to CR-LDP (although this would be the easiest solution, CR-LDP has been deprecated).
> 

But to support either of your solutions in (1) and (2) means starting 
over. No?

I thought the problem is pretty straightforward: we have tunnel that may 
be used to pass one or multiple PW's. Each PW requires some traffic 
conditioning at ingress and egress. So we exchange the CoS/QoS/token 
bucket/... information between two ends for each PW within the framework 
of PWE3.

- Ping