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

From: "Nurit Sprecher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:32:22 +0200

Hi Vach,
Please see my comments in-line [Nurit]...\[Nurit].
Thanks and best regards,
Nurit.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Vach Kompella
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 1:55 AM
To: 'Rahul Aggarwal'; 'Hamid Ould-Brahim'
Cc: 'pwe3'; [email-masked]; 'Stewart Bryant'
Subject: RE: [PWE3] draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

Hi Rahul,

> >
> > -  Problem space (PS) 1: proposes rsvp-te as an alternative
> >    to LDP/PW for PW regardless what problem is
> >    being solved (single-segment, multi-segment, QoS,
> >    explicit route, etc). Looks to me the draft-id
> >    reflects this problem space (and hence the current
> >    debate on protocols).
> 
> This is not the intention. The primary motivation for RSVP-TE 
> is "MS-PW Traffic Engineering". I will be happy to work with 
> you to clarify the problem space definition in the ID.

Why is this not the intention?  Why have a different signaling mechanism
to address the single segment PW?  It seems a little near-sighted not to
see the direction this should take us ...

[Nurit] Of course you can use it also for a single hop PW but not
necessarily since there is no much use in the signaled information.
However, for MS TE PWs, this information must be signaled to allow the
S-PEs to realize the TE information of the PW and select an appropriate
Tunnel for the PW. Otherwise this information should be manually
configured at each PE for each PW that may be stitched/switched by the
S-PE. Or it can be signaled and the the S-PEs can select the appropriate
Tunnel that complies to the TE requirements of the PW. For example, the
hops through which the PW must transmit, the BW, the
Diffserv/Difffserv-TE information, the traffic periodicities, etc.. A
tunnel that is selected for a PW by an S-PE should have enough BW, and a
traffic priority that is not smaller than this of the PW, use the same
Diffserv-TE class, maybe protected by FRR mechanism, etc.
In addition if the PW must transmit via specific hops, it may be that
the tunnel should be terminated at a certain hop , etc. This information
(and much more) should be signaled and today none of the existing
mechanisms is designed to do it. RSVP-TE already support most of the
information. A little should be added (PW identifiers, etc.).
\[Nurit]
 
... and one protocol to rule them all :-)

> rahul

-Vach

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