Subject: Re: What we disagree on RE: TE Requirements Draft-ELSP

From: Shai Herzog <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:30:30 -0500

At 1010 AM 04/12/2001, Francois Le Faucheur wrote
>Nabil and Shahram,
>
>The one option we disagree on is
>(iiia) Using E-LSPs with traffic from multiple OAs with multiple BW and 
>single value for all other attributes (preemption, CT, affinity...).

I for one disagree that E-LSPs with Multiple OAs and single BW are
technically (or theoretically) sound. Not to use the cliche of apples
and oranges, pretty much it is equivalent to:

Given a box, how many watermelons and cherries can you fit inside it?

Since different OAs are disjoint, and draw from different pools,
how do you propose we split the single BW parameters among the multiple
OAs?

Shai

---

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 15:42:58 -0500 (EST)

> Given a box, how many watermelons and cherries can you fit inside it?

783 for me, using bing cherries, 1328 using marascheno.

> how do you propose we split the single BW parameters among the multiple

it's application specific, if you even can.  Of course if your application
doesn't fit this mold, then use L-LSPs.  Certainly simulations are better
behaved using L-LSPs.  Some network architectures lend themselves handily
to having a subset of OAs on different LSPs, though.