RE: [PWE3] PWE3 new WG items?

["Shah, Himanshu" <hshah at ciena.com>]

more correctly -  "... attribute of an (egress) AC"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shah, Himanshu 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 5:18 PM
> To: 'benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com'; pwe3@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 new WG items?
> 
> 
> Signaling of the QOS parameters that is specific to 
> a given PW-FEC falls within the charter of PWE3 as
> it is an attribute of a PW-FEC.
> 
> This is my understanding.
> 
> /himanshu
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com
> > [mailto:benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 5:03 PM
> > To: Shah, Himanshu; pwe3@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 new WG items?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > So what you are proposing is the problem of signalling the 
> > QoS parameters that should be associated with a given PW.  As 
> > PW signalling is based on MPLS signalling, I believe that the 
> > signalling of QoS parameters is a generic MPLS problem and 
> > not one specific to PWs.  In which case it is a problem that 
> > should be addressed by the MPLS WG and not the PWE WG.
> > 
> > Ben
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Shah, Himanshu [mailto:hshah@ciena.com]
> > Sent:	Tue 17-Feb-04 19:21
> > To:	Niven-Jenkins,B,Ben,XGH5 R; pwe3@ietf.org
> > Cc:	
> > Subject:	RE: [PWE3] PWE3 new WG items?
> > Hi Ben,
> > 
> > Lets suppose PE1 and PE2 has PW between them.
> > When exchanging PW-FEC, PE2 tells PE1 what PW-Label
> > to use when sending traffic from PE1 to PE2.
> > 
> > With QOS, PE2 also tells PE1, what QOS to use when
> > sending traffic from PE1 to PE2. In a traffic engineered
> > mpls core, PE1 would then select a (CAC enabled)transport tunnel
> > (assuming there is more than one) that suits PW's QOS 
> > requirement that goes from PE1 to PE2. It is also possible to
> > create and/or adjust transport tunnel aperture that suits PW's 
> > QOS requirement.
> > 
> > This is the motivation.
> > 
> > /himanshu
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com
> > > [mailto:benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 1:44 PM
> > > To: pwe3@ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 new WG items?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Folks,
> > > 
> > > > QOS stuff of course... :-)
> > > > 
> > > > We submitted PWE3 Control protocol extension to 
> > > > exchange capabilities as a way to add more stuff
> > > > and to negotiate. I think QOS for PW is important.
> > > 
> > > An observation/fact: A PW acts as a client to a server layer 
> > > (be it MPLS, IP or whatever) and as a result the QoS that can 
> > > be provided by a PW cannot be better than the QoS provided by 
> > > the server layer used by the PW.
> > > 
> > > My comments:
> > > 1) Assuming that the QoS in the available server layers (e.g 
> > > EXP bits/DiffServ for the MPLS/IP server layers) is adequate 
> > > (and it could be argued that it isn't) then given that a PW 
> > > is basically a MPLS LSP with sequence number support, why 
> > > does PW QoS need its own specification?  Why can't a PW use 
> > > the same QoS mechanisms as MPLS LSPs?
> > > 
> > > For example, why would a service provider deploying PWs over 
> > > a MPLS core want to use two different but interacting QoS 
> > > mechanisms (one for PWs, one for MPLS LSPs) and add 
> > > significant additional fault conditions/complexity/opex to 
> > > their network when they could use the same QoS mechanism for 
> > > both PWs and MPLS?
> > > 
> > > 2) Assuming that QoS in the available server layers is not 
> > > adequate then seeing as PW QoS is dependant on the server 
> > > layer QoS, shouldn't the problem of specifying adequate QoS 
> > > in the available server layers be addressed first?  Once 
> > > there is adequate QoS in the available server layers then 
> > > comment (1) above applies.
> > > 
> > > So either:
> > > QoS for MPLS is adequate and ergo the problem of QoS for PWs 
> > > has already been addressed.
> > > 
> > > Or, QoS for MPLS is inadequate and ergo QoS for MPLS should 
> > > be addressed first and then the problem of QoS for PWs has 
> > > already been addressed.
> > > 
> > > Ben
> > > 
> > > The above is my personal view and does not necessarily 
> > > reflect the opinion of my employer.
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > pwe3 mailing list
> > > pwe3@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3