Subject: RE: draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

From: "Nurit Sprecher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:40:31 +0200

Hi again Luca,

Please see my comments in-line.

Thanks,

Nurit.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Luca Martini
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:58 AM
To: Kireeti Kompella
Cc: Shahram Davari; pwe3; Stewart Bryant
Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

>>CAC for PW ? RSVP-TE does not do CAC.

>!!!

>Perhaps you should learn more about RSVP-TE before making statements

>about what it does and does not do.

To quote somebody else .....

"CAC is a local phenomenon that - by itself - would not

normally require a protocol.  The question is whether

or not a signaling protocol allows for behaviors that 

will be present when CAC is applied during signaling."

So you should be more specific ....

I, for example, would like to perform a CAC function based on a class of
PW , not on Bandwidth.

That can be done today with the current PWE3 protocol ....

[Nurit]

A TE Tunnel may have a committed information rate. If a TE service that
is emulated by a PW has an SLA for a certain amount of guaranteed BW, we
should check first that the TE Tunnel has enough BW for the PW. This is
another kind of CAC which is very typical for TE services. The current
PWE3 protocols can not do it today.....and there are much more for TE
sake that they cannot do. It is true that they are appropriate for
non-TE PWs and even for a single hop ETE PW, but not for MS TE PWs. 

\[Nurit]

Luca

 

>Kireeti.

>-------

>_______________________________________________

>pwe3 mailing list

>[email-masked]

>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

_______________________________________________

pwe3 mailing list

[email-masked]

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3