RE: WG last call: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-04.txt

["Sudhakar Ganti" <sganti@tropicnetworks.com>]

Jerry,

Basically I would like to know the following:
1) How would an LER use the knowledge of BC model in
   the path setup/compuation?
2) What do you do if models are different?
3) Can I use different BC models on each link if
   I choose to rather than one model for the whole LSR?
   If so "consistency" broken?
4) What is the impact of different models in a network?
4) If we don't have reasonable answers for the above,
   I do not see a need to mandate that for "consistency"
   a uniform BC model is a must.

I have more severe problem with consistency regarding 
the TE-Class than the BC model. What if each node is 
configured differently such that one LSR understands 
a TE-Class differently from another LSR? The whole 
solution may not work correctly!!

-Sudhakar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO [mailto:gash@att.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:04 AM
> To: Francois Le Faucheur
> Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO; te-wg@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: WG last call: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-04.txt
> 
> 
> Francois, all,
> 
> > At 12:30 04/06/2002 -0400, Francois Le Faucheur wrote:
> 
> > If one LSR believes that BC0 is a constraint for CT0 while
> another LSR
> > believes BC0 is a constraint for CT0+CT1, it will be very
> hard for a
> > network operator to achieve anything useful/predictable.
> 
> I agree with Francois.  Useful/predictable (i.e.,
> 'consistent') behavior in a domain would only be achieved by a uniform

> BC model used in the domain.
> 
> To Jim's question on last call, I believe we should incorporate the
> changes proposed by Wai Sum and send that updated version to the IESG.
> 
> Jerry
> 
>