The MPLS WG Archive

["Roberto Mameli (ERI)" <Roberto.Mameli@eri.ericsson.se>]

Hello all,

undoubtely the concept of CLASSTYPE is very useful to reduce IGP flooding in a MPLS network, but as far as E-LSP are managed today, there is no possibility to signal per PSC bandwidth requirements and thus to distinguish among different resource pools. Another proposal in this direction is the draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iovanna-rsvp-mpls-flowspec-00.txt.

Regards


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nabil Seddigh [mailto:nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:29 PM
> To: Iren, Sami
> Cc: 'Vishal M'; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: CLASSTYPE object
> 
> 
> Sami,
> 
> Currently, the CLASSTYPE object cannot really be used with 
> E-LSPs in the manner you describe. The CLASSTYPE object is only
> useful with L-LSPs.
> 
> In order to utilize the concept of bandwidth pools in E-LSP,
> one needs to be able to signal traffic parameters per class 
> or per-PSC. That capability is not present in the standards today.
> 
> The closest proposal to achieve what you describe is the following:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ganti-mpls-diffserv-
elsp-00.txt

Best,
Nabil Seddigh

> 
> Your understanding that the CLASSTYPE is used to
> specify the bandwidth pool to be used for allocating
> resources during LSP Setup is correct. In this context,
> the service class which is signalled via EXP bits
> (in the case of E-LSPs) dictate the treatment given
> to the individual packets, and the CLASSTYPE, which
> is signalled per LSP, dictates where the bandwidth
> is coming from (used in CAC).
> 
> [....deleted....]
>
> Ideally, I would prefer to get rid of the CLASSTYPE
> concept and advertise available bandwidth per service class.