Subject: Re: new version: draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-01.txt

From: Yuichi Ikejiri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 06:30:40 +0900

Hi, 

I think that this requirement documents are basically good to 
develop further inter-as discussion.

I am not sure if some possible scenario or function are addressed 
explicitly in this document.

 - the case of inter-as tunnel between PE/RSP and PE/GSP, not ce-to-ce.
      - there could be some cases that SPs don't want to 
        establish tunnels between ce-to-ce in the case of Scenario
        III, equal peering type.
 - the functionality or case of interconencting each MPLS TE LSP at ASBR.
      - there could be some cases that RSP or GRP's internal 
        MPLS TEs are connected to Inter-AS TE at ASBR.

Regards,
Yuichi Ikejiri
NTT Communications Corporation

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:39:28 -0500
Jean Philippe Vasseur <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> First of all, thanks for the various comments we received and that are now 
> integrated in the version -01 of the inter-AS TE requirements draft (just 
> posted: 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-01.txt). 
> Some other Service Providers will join the draft in the next release. Your 
> comments on the list are very welcome.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> JP.
> 
>

---

From: raymond zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:00:08 -0800

Hi Yuichi,

>         establish tunnels between ce-to-ce in the case of Scenario

This case can be covered in case I of Scenario II, section 4.2 by extending 
the inter-AS TE tunnel ending from GSP/ASBR to GSP/PE...  I'll update the 
draft in -02 to reflect this point. Thanks.

>         MPLS TEs are connected to Inter-AS TE at ASBR.

I am not sure of this point... it would be good if you could provide an 
example or elaborate a bit more ?  Inter-AS TE tunnel as defined in this 
draft is intended to be established end-to-end, not by segments stitched 
together...  Section 5.8 defines the requirements of TE LSP aggregation 
whereby an Inter-AS TE tunnel may be aggregated onto the intra-AS MPLS-TE 
LSP so as to reduce the # of tunnel states...

---

From: Yuichi Ikejiri <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:48:50 +0900

Hi Raymond,

> LSP so as to reduce the # of tunnel states...
I assume the case below.

CE1--RSP(PE)---ASBR----ASBR----GSP(PE)----CE2
 <------Inter-AS-TE---------><----Internal-TE--->
                                      ~~~~
                  (interconnecting or mapping)

You mention vrf to inter-as-TE mapping at ASBR in Section5.9 but  
I think that the mapping function would not be limmited to vrf cases 
as a general requirement, even if any specific function might not be
needed as a result or be out of scope of this document.

Regards,
Yuichi

---

From: raymond zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 13:27:17 -0800

Hi Yuichi,

>needed as a result or be out of scope of this document.

Thanks for the clarification.  Section 5.9 presents a requirement for case 
2 of Scenario II in sec. 4.2.  The Inter-AS TE tunnels are meant to be 
extended virtual local loops over RSP's network which maybe terminated at 
the ASBR or any PE in the GSP's network (I will update case 2 diagram to 
reflect your diagram above).  In other words, the inter-AS TE and 
Internal-TE are essentially the same RSVP-TE tunnel.

Your are right on the point of not being limited to vrf cases, it could be 
in global space as well.  Thanks for pointing this out.