RE: IETF54- Informal discussion on BC Model for DS-TE

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

I'd agree with this too......our experience of pre-emption schemes in other
technologies tells us we would want to be able to disable them.

regards, Neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geib, Ruediger [mailto:Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com]
> Sent: 15 July 2002 08:21
> To: gash@att.com
> Cc: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: IETF54- Informal discussion on BC Model for DS-TE
> 
> 
> Hi Jerry
> 
> > > Russian Dolls model does not "mandate" the use of 
> > > preemption. It just uses it for what it has been specified 
> > > for (ie bounce off LSPs when needed).
> > > 
> > > My impression is that it is just not possible to simultanesouly :
> > >          -(i) ensure bandwidth sharing (ie no bandwidth wastage)
> > >          -(ii) ensure bandwidth isolation (ie a CT cannot 
> > >               have some of its bandwidth taken by another CT)
> > >          -(iii) refuse to use preemption
> > > 
> > > I believe SPs have requirements for (i) and (ii) and don't 
> > > have a problem with using preemption, which is an existing
> > > TE mechanism.
>  
> > Not all SPs assume the use of preemption.  So the default BC 
> > model should not assume ('require') the use of preemption to 
> > operate efficiently.
> 
> Yes, that's correct. I'd prefer a default BC model where 
> preemption is an optional add on instead of a mandatory feature.
> 
> Regards, Rüdiger
> 
>  
>