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

From: "Nurit Sprecher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:01:27 +0200

Hi Luca,

Please see my comments in-line. [Nurit]....\[Nurit]

Thanks,

Nurit.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Luca Martini
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:05 PM
To: Shahram Davari
Cc: pwe3; Stewart Bryant
Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

Shahram,

Neither does the RSVP-TE method. It might appear on the surface that 

rsvp-te supports these functions , but it would need a lot of work to 

actually support multi-hop PWs or even PWs .

[Nurit] Personally I don't agree with this statement. There are minimal
extensions that required, which basically include the PW identifier and
type, and the control word.

\[Nurit]

If the question is : can we make RSVP-TE fit this application ? then the

answer is yes , but it will need a lot of new protocol specification.

CAC for PW ? RSVP-TE does not do CAC. The routing algorithm does. 

[Nurit] Note that the routing algorithm does not make CAC as well. It is
just a mean to distribute the information on the unreserved BW. The
U-PEs and the S-PEs network elements make CAC. The RSVP-TE protocol has
a mean to signal the requirements for QoS, Diffserv/Diffserv-TE,
priorities, explicit route, etc. \[Nurit]

All that we have in RSVP-TE is the ability to carry QoS parameters ,
that 

might not even fit the PW specification. Can you specify a Sustained 

Cell Rate in RSVP ? No.

We do not have any of  the control protocol extensions that we specified

in the PWE3 control protocol.

Of course this would be yet another way to setup PWs, with not much 

advantage either.

Luca

Shahram Davari wrote:

>Does the existing signaling method support MH-PW signaling, CAC and BW
reservation?

>-Shahram

>>-----Original Message-----

>>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of

>>Thomas D. Nadeau

>>Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 10:41 AM

>>To: Stewart Bryant

>>Cc: pwe3

>>Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>Hash: SHA1

>>    Personally speaking, I don't think that it is useful

>>for the WG to spend time and effort re-inventing

>>the wheel, so to speak, which is what this draft

>>represents. We already have a protocol for

>>signaling PWs that works, and is deployed. If

>>there were some significant advantage to signaling

>>PWs using an alternative means, I would think

>>otherwise, but it seems this is just being proposed

>>as an alternative means for achieving the same

>>end result.

>>    --Tom

>>>At IETF62 the authors of

>>>Setup and Maintenance of Pseudowires using RSVP-TE

>>>ftp://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

>>>asked for the draft to become a WG draft.

>>>What is the view of members of the PWE3 WG?

>>>Stewart

>>>_______________________________________________

>>>pwe3 mailing list

>>>[email-masked]

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

>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

>>Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

>>iD8DBQFCQY4dHwfkLUURkkwRAgbtAJ9Bpc/zSm0TungLQ/LOQOD8VXDr+ACfXkWS

>>obq/1BEDNhqeTW+u8DzaYGU=

>>=s7XE

>>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>>_______________________________________________

>>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

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