[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Closer to a 'unified' ds-te approach ? RE: Is the advertisement ( IGP) of available BW at each pre-emption le vel is a DS-TE- requirement ?
Choudhury,
At 09:47 13/11/2001 -0500, Choudhury, Sanjaya wrote:
>Hi! It is nice to know that you are working on a
>new draft that combines the previous proposals.
>
>-Is the new proposal based on important ideas from
>all the previous DS-TE alternatives drafts(
>Le Faucheur,Kompella,boyel,ash,bitar) ?
Yes, we're trying to pull together the best bits of some of these
proposals. There shouldn't be anything new compared to those.
>-Jim Boyel, in his response indicated that the new
>DS-TE requirements draft is expected to be posted
>next week.
>Do you have any time frame in mind for the preliminary
>version of the 'Unified' DS-TE draft ?
I don't think we'll be able to issue it much before the 21 Nov cut-off date.
Thanks for your interest
Francois
>Thanks,
>sanjay
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Francois Le Faucheur [mailto:flefauch@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 8:06 AM
> > To: Choudhury, Sanjaya; Jim Boyle
> > Cc: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Is the advertisement (IGP) of available BW at each
> > pre-emption le vel is a DS-TE- requirement ?
> >
> >
> > Choudhury,
> >
> > At 20:17 09/11/2001 -0500, Jim Boyle wrote:
> >
> > >On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Choudhury, Sanjaya wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi! I have few questions related to the LSP
> > pre-emption in a DS-TE
> > > > environment. I will appreciate, your help with
> > these questions.
> > > >
> > > > Q1. If we support pre-emption _across_ different
> > DiffServ classes,
> > > > then what is the advantage in advertising available
> > bandwidth for
> > > > each
> > > > class at _each pre-emption level_ ?
> > >
> > >There is no agreed upon protocol proposal for DS-TE right
> > now, preemption
> > >within and across class types is an issue that has been raised on the
> > >list. At this point, the requirements document is under a
> > revision which
> > >should clarify the need (or lack of need) for this, the revision is
> > >expected in the next week (or so). Francois or one of his co-authors
> > >may answer your question more directly, as you are refering to their
> > >proposal.
> >
> > Our previous draft discussed the advantages of advertising bw at each
> > preemption level for each Class-Type.
> > This includes :
> > - ability to use one given preemption simultaneously
> > by multiple CTs
> > - no dependency on consistent configuration of
> > CT/preemption mapping
> > - easier migration scenarios
> >
> > However, after discussing more with some Service Providers,
> > it seems that
> > smaller IGP advertisement maybe more important than these above
> > benefits. We are currently working on merging several of the earlier
> > proposals into a common one which would advertise a total of
> > 8 bandwidth
> > values.
> >
> > Francois
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Francois Le Faucheur
> > Development Engineer, IOS Layer 3 Services
> > Cisco Systems
> > Office Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 19
> > Mobile : +33 6 89 108 159
> > Fax: +33 4 97 23 26 26
> > Email: flefauch@cisco.com
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Cisco Systems
> > Domaine Green Side
> > 400, Avenue de Roumanille
> > 06 410 Biot - Sophia Antipolis
> > FRANCE
> > _________________________________________________________
> >
> >
_________________________________________________________
Francois Le Faucheur
Development Engineer, IOS Layer 3 Services
Cisco Systems
Office Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 19
Mobile : +33 6 89 108 159
Fax: +33 4 97 23 26 26
Email: flefauch@cisco.com
_________________________________________________________
Cisco Systems
Domaine Green Side
400, Avenue de Roumanille
06 410 Biot - Sophia Antipolis
FRANCE
_________________________________________________________