Re: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP

[David Charlap <David.Charlap@marconi.com>]

Nabil Seddigh wrote:
> 
> I thought I should get this comment in before the -02 version
> of the Requirements draft emerges. Hopefully the authors will
> consider the following suggestion:
> 
> - I think it is useful to put an explicit requirement that the TE
>   solutions need to support both E-LSP and L-LSP. The way the
>   draft reads at the moment, it does not come through clearly.
>   Most of the examples and wording would lead one to believe that
>   the DS-TE solutions should only focus on L-LSP.

You can't insert this requirement.

Some hardware platforms (especially those using ATM-style backplanes)
are incapable of implementing E-LSPs.  These platforms can only support
L-LSPs.  It would be wrong to define DS-TE such that these platforms can
never be compliant.

-- David