The MPLS WG Archive

[Marcus Brunner <brunner@ccrle.nec.de>]

Shahram,

In many scenarios, the admission control for a PBH scheduling classes is
already fuzzy, which means on a statistical level, you will run into
trouble if you want to do admission control for aggregates of different
PHB classes.

Marcus

Shahram Davari wrote:
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> You can do admission control for E-LSP too. But the admission control is done for the aggregate of all supported PHBs in that LSP.
> 
> Regards,
> -Shahram
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel N. Bauer [mailto:dnb@zurich.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 3:00 AM
> > To: Simeone Mastropietro
> > Cc: mpls@UU.NET
> > Subject: Re: E-LSP or L-LSP
> >
> >
> > Here's one difference that might or might not be important:
> >
> > Packets that are carried inside an E-LSP might belong to
> > different PHB scheduling classes, whereas packets inside
> > an L-LSP belong to the same PHB scheduling class.
> > This difference is important in the case where admission control
> > is required/wanted: For L-LSPs, admission control can be carried
> > out since the traffic specification in the signaling matches a
> > single PHB scheduling class. For E-LSPs, this is not true and
> > consequently, no admission control can be carried out.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Daniel
> >
> >
> > Simeone Mastropietro wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > > I am a novel researcher on MPLS and TE for Co.Ri.Tel (
> > Rome, Italy)...
> > > Is there anyone that can help me to understand when E-LSPs or L-LSPs
> > > actually should be used?
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > > Simeone Mastropietro
> >

-- 

Dr. Marcus Brunner
C&C Research Laboratories
NEC Europe Ltd.

E-Mail: brunner@ccrle.nec.de
WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
personal home page: http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/~brunner

Adenauerplatz 6
D-69115 Heidelberg
Germany

Phone: +49 (0)6221/ 9051129
Fax:   +49 (0)6221/ 9051155