Subject: TE/CT Configuration scalability

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 15:38:06 +0300

draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-07, "Protocol extensions for support of
Differentiated-Service-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering" states:-

"To ensure coherent DS-TE operation, the network administrator MUST
configure exactly the same TE-Class Mapping on all LSRs of the DS-TE
domain"

How does this idea of identical TE/CT configuration work over multiple
domains? Is there any possibility of interoperability?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lionel Silman,  System, Optical Networks Division, ECI Telecom
Tel    Work: +972 (3) 9266007; Home: +972 (3) 6417464

---

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:55:20 -0400 (EDT)

See 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-07.txt

Section 5.1.7, this references section 4.1, of 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-07.txt

which doesn't exist.

Also

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-02.txt

Section 7.11

For interarea - I don't see a problem, as it's one administrative domain.

For interas - there may need to be use of diff-serv mpls signalling, or 
"careful" coordination between domains.

Jim

--

---

From: Ina Minei <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:25:49 -0700 (PDT)

Lionel,

	I assume your question is "can I establish an inter-as diffserv-te
lsp given the requirement for uniform TE-class configuration" ? The answer
is yes.

	The reason for having a requirement for uniform TE-Class
configuration is because of the way IGP siganling is defined in the
te-proto draft. If instead of only advertising 8 values out of the 64
possible (ct, prio) combinations we would have advertised all 64, there
wouldn't have been the concept of TE-classes or the requirement to keep
them uniform.

	The only thing we get from the requirement is to be able to
consistently set up an LSP conforming to some SLAs within one domain. So
what happens when you cross to a different domain? All you need to do is
translate the LSP's SLAs to the necessary parameters in the new domain.

	There is no requirement to signal the TE-class matrix across
domains.

			Ina

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 11:01:56 -0700

The other possibility is for someone to propose a "standard" mapping.   
For
anti-trust reasons, I don't believe that this would be best coming from  
a
non-carrier.  For IETF reasons, I believe that this would be best if it
was proposed as "one possible" mapping, not _THE DEFINITIVE SINGULAR_  
mapping.

Tony