Subject: TE-operator call for presentations/input (multi-area)

From: Ed Kern <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:08:51 -0500

We are starting to take the first steps in the direction of defining
 requirements for multi-area TE.

 This was not fully fleshed out in Network Hierarchy and Multilayer
 Survivability (RFC3386) for several reasons.  At the time, the
 chairs, AD's, design team and WG simply werent sure if this was
 necessary or that if there was enough operator need to properly scope
 this work.

 Currently on the list we have been discussing requirements in the
 context of draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-01.txt.  Before we proceed
 much further, the chairs would like to hear from operators who are:

 1. *Currently* in need of a multi-area solution on a production
 2. Currently deploying a version/flavor of multi-area TE.
 3. Waiting on a standard/guidance before planning/deploying
 4. Feel that these requirements should be scoped out regardless of
    current operational requirements.

 This is not an attempt to rope you into assisting with the current
 draft but more a request to:

 1. Present current protocol limitations/concerns at next ietf
 2. Discuss them on the list here

 We are specifically trying to target front-line engineering and
 operational efforts.  We understand that from an architectural
 perspective, having the path to multi-area and multi-as solutions
 is desirable.  However, we are uncertain how much of this is pulling
 up into *real* obstacles at this time.

Ed & Jim

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:49:20 +0100

ed, 

i have a question directed to the user community
on inter-as srlg diverse path, how can we ensure
a single srlg id space exists ? i.e. even if the
signalling allows for carrying an exclusion set 
(for inst. is as_1 uses set {1,2,3} and as_2 the 
set {4,5,6} the rro gives the set {2,5}, and the
for the protecting lsp the he selects 1, how to 
be sure that 1 and 5 do not share a common risk,
for inst. a common fiber cable ?)

thanks,
- dimitri.

-- 
Papadimitriou Dimitri 
E-mail : [email-masked] 
Private: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html
E-mail : [email-masked]
Public : http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/
Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone  : Work: +32 3 2408491 - Home: +32 2 3434361

---

From: Jean Philippe Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:05:11 -0500

Hi Ed,

I think your request is really legitimate. Now I'd just like to reenforce 
the fact that the requirements for inter-AS and multi-area should not be 
mixed as they are pretty much different. So the requirements for inter-AS 
TE are discussed in draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-01.txt (we'll publish 
the next revision this week) and your question specifically refers to the 
requirements for multi-area, correct ?

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:16:23 -0500 (EST)

The request is for anything that folks feel they require beyond RFC3386.
If that's multi-area only, fine, if it's multi-as only, fine.
If it's both, fine. Your draft has proven useful in being a catylyst
for this topic in general.

thanks,

Jim