Re: Last call comments: draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-01.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi again,
At the risk of flogging this one further than is reasonable...

> >3. Is there a reason to require contiguous signaling rather than some
> >other form?
> >
> >I still don't see one.
>
> Well, you may not want a downstream SP to use stitching and potentially
> "hide" what happens downstream in term of reroute, failure, reoptimization,

Of the things you list, only reoptimization is specially hidden by stitching.

Repair/recovery mechanisms are already "hidden", or can be.

Perhaps something that you want here is some statement on inherritance rules. That is, the
relationship between the parameters of the end-to-end LSP and the stitched or tunnel LSP
that supports it.

That would be reasonable to define (see the inter-domain framework draft that tries to
point this out).

But so far you are repeatedly saying that there are functions that the ingress has a right
to control (which is fine) and that the way it should do this is by limiting how the
network provides signaling (which is not fine). Why is it not acceptable to you to specify
the functions that the LSP must support?

> ...
>
> >Please understand that I am *NOT* saying that SPs have a perfect right to
> >control what signaling is used within their network. This is usually achieved
> >through the joint measures of procurement and configuration. An SP would
> >be justifiably vexed to discover that a cluster of LSRs within their network
> >had autonomously switched LSP setup requests to operate in CR-LDP.
> >However, it is not true to say that when an ingress LSR sends an RSVP-TE
> >Path message it is requiring that that signaling technique be used all the way
> >to the egress.
> >
> >The issue clearly gets fuzzy when the LSP traverses part of the network
> >that is out of the originating SP's direct control (i.e. another AS). But here
> >we are talking only about areas.
>
> But as you know the solutions will apply to both inter-area and inter-AS.

Well, I venture to suggest that areas all belong to the same administrative domain and so
are under the administrative control of the initiating SP.

Adrian