Nabil:
Understood, my issue is not the functionality, it is the terminology. Sort this out in Yokahoma....
later
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nabil Seddigh [mailto:nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 4:32 PM
> To: Allan, David [CAR:NS00:EXCH]
> Cc: Francois Le Faucheur; te-wg@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Another question on draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-01.txt
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> Yes indeed this issue was vigorously discussed on the list -
> circa the Utah IETF.
>
> In summary: the current DS-TE mechanisms are not tailored to
> carrying multiple classes of traffic on a single E-LSP. They are
> geared towards carrying a single class per E-LSP or L-LSP.
>
> The proposals I referred to in a previous email allow signaling
> of bw requirements for mutiple classes on an E-LSP. However,
> at present, the WG did not deem it timely to adopt them
> as WG items.
>
> > So what do we do about E-LSPs carrying traffic from more
> than one aggregate.
> > It is engineerable (at some level of granularity)? Looks like an
> > orphan...and I'll apologise in advance if this has already
> been flogged on
> > the list...
> >
>
> Best,
> Nabil Seddigh
>