RE: What we disagree on RE: TE Requirements Draft-ELSP

[Shai Herzog <sherzog@hyperchip.com>]

Francois,

Here's a proof that one lunch does more to advance things than hundreds of
email messages!

Yes. If all the OAs that are included in the E-LSP are never used in any
other LSP (L-LSP), and are never used in E-LSP in any other combination (or
BW ratio) and if they are drawing from a single BW pool, then they are
virtually ONE individible class (that happen to be made of two OAs).

In this case, there should be no chance for conflicting results between the
two OAs, and therefore, not a problem in my view.

It is important for folks to understand (and we should acknowledge) that
breaking these constraints (such as suddenly adding L-LSP that use some of
these OA) will cause serious problems, and is highly discouraged.

Shai

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Francois Le Faucheur [mailto:flefauch@europe.cisco.com]
>Sent: December 11, 2001 1:04 AM
>To: Shai Herzog
>Cc: 'Francois Le Faucheur'; 'Nabil Seddigh'; 'te-wg@ops.ietf.org'
>Subject: RE: What we disagree on RE: TE Requirements Draft-ELSP
>
>
>Shai,
>
>This message focuses on otion (ii).
>
>Based on the conversation we had Yesterday in SLC, my 
>understanding is that:
>         - there was one operating assumption that I had not 
>made clear for 
>when (ii) would be used which is that option (ii) would not be 
>mixed with 
>option (iv) [aka L-LSPs] for the same OAs.
>         - with this assumption being made explicit you agree 
>that option 
>(ii) is viable and would not create any "meltdown"
>         - you would now not have an objection to the DS-TE 
>REQST draft 
>stating that :
>                 * there is currently no established clear 
>requirement for 
>option (ii)
>                 * but that a DSTE solution may support option 
>(ii)  [since 
>this comes for free]
>                 * clarifying that option (ii) is not a 
>"general" solution 
>but may be useful and viable provided a number of 
>"operational" assumptions 
>are met (eg. assumption clarified above).
>
>Is this right?
>
>thanks
>
>Francois
>
>
>At 18:36 07/12/2001 -0500, Shai Herzog wrote:
>>Francois,
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >If I understand correctly, this is where we stand :
>> >         - Nabil is saying, let's allow (ii) and (iiia)
>> >         - Shai is saying, let's not allow (ii) nor (iiia)
>> >         - Francois is saying, let's allow (ii) but not (iiia).
>>
>>Your correct regarding my position. I think the "Single BW or 
>CSPF" doesn't
>>exist and has no meaning (other than random or arbitrary). 
>Multiple BW/CSPF
>>exist, but pose horrendous danger to network stability (one 
>that can be
>>lurking and not obvious before dissaster strikes).
>>However, I believe in democracy, so I would correct the "not 
>allow" to "not
>>sanction and warn against". If someone wants to drive into 
>the wall, at
>>least he/she won't be able to come back and blame us for 
>designing a faulty
>>and dangerous standard.
>>
>> >At least, my religion is more middle-of-the-ground than either
>> >of yours. '^)
>>
>>Let me see. Lets think religion... So, I believe in 
>evolution, you believe
>>in a combination of evolution and creationism, and Nabil 
>believes in pure
>>creationism. In this case, I like being on the extreme side ;-)
>>
>>Shai
>>
>> >
>> >Cheers
>> >
>> >Francois
>> >
>
>
>