[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP
At 16:36 21/11/2001 +0100, Giovanna Piantanida (ERI) wrote:
> >>As Nabil correctly told in his mail, the same debate could be done for
> >>RSVP-TE against CR-LDP. From a functional perspective they are equivalent,
> >>so why should we define two protocols when just one is enough? What kind
> >>of problem can be solved by CR-LDP that RSVP-TE is not able to cope with
> >>(or vice versa)? No one... there are no problems to solve; simply an
> >>operator could prefer CR-LDP, while another could choose RSVP-TE.
> >Interesting. Do you think the IETF should have specified a third TE
> >protocol, in case some SP might have prefered the 3rd one?
>I don't get the spirit of this last remark:
Since the above was stated in response to the question of "what problem
does it solve", this appear to me to be saying "well, it doesn't solve any
problem but we should still do it because some SPs may end up using it". I
didn't find this a compelling argument. I am glad if this was arguing
something else (even if I don't quite get the argument).
>no one was suggesting to specify
>something just because SP could like to have it. in my opinion
>the goal of discussion was, oppositely,
>not to persist in specifying something no SP on earth would ever actually
>need to use.
Great. So I guess you would then agree we should first get SPs to express
the need for something before including it in the requirements document and
specifying the correponding extensions.
Thanks for the clarification
Francois Le Faucheur
Development Engineer, IOS Layer 3 Services
Office Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 19
Mobile : +33 6 89 108 159
Fax: +33 4 97 23 26 26
Domaine Green Side
400, Avenue de Roumanille
06 410 Biot - Sophia Antipolis