RE: ClassType object for Signalling? Routing? Neither?

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO" <gash@att.com>]

I support (1), signaling only.  I don't see the need to extend the IGP.

Jerry Ash

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Boyle [mailto:jboyle@pdnets.com]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 12:45 PM
To: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
Subject: ClassType object for Signalling? Routing? Neither?

In the protocol draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-00.txt

A new object is introduced for explicitily signalling the class-type (see
for example section 2 of appendix A).

This differs from the use of the use of the TEClass in the IGP
advertisements, where TEClass[i] is mapped to a unique ClassType and
preemption priority.

The intention was to allow for existing semantics over the setup and hold
priorities.  However there some discussion on this approach compared to
having those fields again being TEClass values (which would map into
ClassType and preemption priority on the router).

The specific question that we have for the WG is the following:

Would it be preferable to:

(1) Keep it as in the draft with ClassType object in signalling and
inferred TEClasses in the IGP.

(2) Keep the ClassType object in the signalling, but also add additional
information in the IGP to communicate throughout the TE domain which nodes
are DS-TE capable, and perhaps some limited amount of additional
information.

(3) Use inferred TEClasses in both the signalling and the IGP (e.g. no new
objects, just semantics).

Briefly, should we add explicit DS-TE information such as ClassType to:
(1) Signalling only
(2) Signalling and Routing
(3) Neither

regards,

Jim