Re: could we agree on this ? Fwd: RE: TE Requirements Draft -ELSP

[Nabil Seddigh <nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com>]

Francois,

> >   i) Using E-LSPs with traffic from a single OA
> >  ii) Using E-LSPs with traffic from multiple OAs with single BW
> >  iii) Using E-LSPs with traffic from multiple OAs with multiple BW
> >   iv) Using L-LSP
> >
> Excluding it would be a useless restrictions. Would it not?
> Can you agree to the proposal of updating REQTS to allow support of (ii). 

Agreed. The DS-TE solutions should allow for option (ii).

> 
> Your breakdown misses part of the discussion we've had which is precisely
> while I splitted that case earlier. 

The reason I had issues with your earlier breakdown was that it 
got into the CSPF mechanism employed and that is proprietary.
IMHO, the lines below capture the two sub-choices better.

> (iiia) Using E-LSPs with traffic from multiple OAs with multiple
> BW and single value for all other attributes (preemption, CT, affinity...)
> (iiib) Using E-LSPs with traffic from multiple OAs with multiple
> BW and multiple values for all other attributes (preemption, CT,...)

Yes, indeed, I believe we have been arguing for inclusion of 
(iiia) all along. 

Best,
Nabil