1. IETF 58 Vienna - TEWG DS-TE protocol Extensions Russian Dolls Model (RDM) Maximum Allocation Model (MAM) Maximum Allocation w Reservation(MAR) draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-05.txt draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-04.txt draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mam-01.txt draft-ietf-tewg-te-mar-02.txt Francois Le Faucheur flefauch@cisco.com

2. IETF 58 Vienna - TEWG Closed Issue 1 Vienna Issue: –relationship between “Shared Mesh Restoration “and DS-TE Bandwidth Constraints Models” needs to be understood –is there an issue? –How do we address it?

3. IETF 58 Vienna - TEWG Closed Issue 1 (Ctnd) Conclusions: –Shared Mesh Restoration can work simultaneously with DS-TE. –Shared Mesh Restoration should operate independently within each DS-TE Class-Type (and not across Class-Types). –Shared Mesh Restoration can work with RDM, MAM and MAR Resolution: –make a wording change to the definition of "Reserved (CTc)" which is used in the formulas for defining RDM, MAM and MAR so that the formulas are compatible with how Shared-Mesh Restoration performs bandwidth reservation/CAC –add a note in RDM, MAM and MAR specs that these BC Model definitions are compatible with Shared Mesh Restoration with the assumption that Shared Mesh Restoration operates independently within each Class-Type. Reference: –email 26 Aug subject “Result of investigation Relationship between Shared Mesh Restoration and DSTE Bandwidth Constraints Models” for details

4. IETF 58 Vienna - TEWG Closed Issue 2 Issue: raised by draft-sivabalan-diff-te-bundling and discussed in Vienna –MPLS TE base specs discuss use of preemption priority p –DS-TE proto redefines unreservable bandwidth available at priority "p" to be the reservable bandwidth available for TE-Class "i“ –TE improvements (eg bundled links, FA-LSP,..) refer to how to address the particulars of that improvement with regards to priority “p” (not to TE-Class “i”) –TE improvements need to be generalised to apply to TE-Class “i” Resolution: –Add a section in –proto- “ 7.DS-TE support with MPLS extensions. ”

5. IETF 58 Vienna - TEWG Closed Issue 2 (Ctnd) Resolution: –Add in –proto- a section tatement that for the IGP and RSVP RFCs, as well as technologies that improve upon them (e.g. FA- LSP, link bundling, etc..), in order to be DS-TE compliant, you need to map all references of "p" to TE- Class[i] and map –make a wording change to the definition of "Reserved (CTc)" which is used in the formulas for defining RDM, MAM and MAR so that the formulas are compatible with how Shared-Mesh Restoration performs bandwidth reservation/CAC – that these BC Model definitions are compatible with Shared Mesh Restoration with the assumption that Shared Mesh Restoration operates independently within each Class-Type. Reference: –email 26 Aug subject “Result of investigation Relationship between Shared Mesh Restoration and DSTE Bandwidth Constraints Models” for details

6. IETF 58 Vienna - TEWG Open Issues None

7. IETF 58 Vienna - TEWG Status -proto-: Standards Track -rdm-, -mam-, -mar: Informational Track WG Last Call completed Under IESG Review

8. IETF 58 Vienna - TEWG Thank You !