RE: DSTE-PROTO: Question/Comments on:Empty TE-Class Map ; Consecutive CTs

["Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <flefauch@cisco.com>]

Sanjaya,

>> > Would the proposed changes address that point?
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> 	I think the proposed changes should address the issue
>> 	of empty TE-Class maps.
>> 
>>

I am not following you. I am assuming that "empty TE-Class maps" means
that all of the 8 possible TE-classes are configured to "unused". Is
this what you mean as well?
If yes, then the proposed changes discuss exactly that. What do you see
is still missing?
If not, what do you mean? the case where the operator has not yet
configured anything?

 

>> > 
>> > Would the proposed changes address that point?
>> > 
>> 	Proposed changes should address the issue of non-consecutive 
>> 	CTs.

But, as I've axplained, I can't really see an issue there.
It seems quite OK for you to use CT0 and CT7 if that is what you want,
regardless of the BC model.

Text on TE-class mapping currently indicates that there is no
restriction on which CT you use in the TE-class mapping, so we are clear
here.
With respect to IGP advertisement of unreserved bandwidth, this has no
impact (you always advertise the 8 values for each TE-class). So we are
clear here.
With respect to IGP advertisment of BCs, I have proposed to enhance the
text so it makes it clear that you would then have to advertise BC0,
BC1, ...BC7. So we would be clear here.
Same thing re IGP advertisment of LOMs. 

I think that is all we have to say. No?

>> 
>> 	Few suggestions/comments:
>> 		1. It will be helpful to add an example to the 
>> RDBC Model
>> 		   draft, that deals with a non-consecutive CT scenario.
>> 

If text covers the case clearly already, why would we need to add a
specific example?
Also, we are trying to keep the proto document independent of the BC
model.

>> 		2. Adding a new CT, in the middle of two existing CTs 
>> 		   may affect the existing LSPs using existing CTs. Need
>> 		   spell out explicitly ?

Well, changing any LSP parameters (eg bandwidth), or adding an LSP with
higher preemption, may affect existing LSPs with DSTE or with TE today.
I don't think we need to discuss that specifically.

>> 
>> 		3. I am not sure, if any of the formula 
>> presented in RDBC 
>> 		   drafts need to be updated to handle the case of 
>> 		   non-consecutive CT (and BC?) case. 

I don't think so. I think formulas are applicable as they are. 
It just happens that, for a given value of b, "Reserved(CTb,q) for all
values of q (0<=q<=7).

Thanks

Francois



>> 	Thanks,
>> 	sanjay
>> 	
>> > Thanks
>> > 
>> > Francois
>> > 
>> > >> 
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >> sanjay	
>> > >> 
>> > >> 			
>> > >> 
>> > >> 
>> > 
>>