RE: Draft minutes from Tove: draft-dachille-inter-region-path-setup-04.txt

["Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>]

Adrian,

Thanks for the observations. I have several things I'd want
to discuss with respect to your note below, and will take
them one-by-one in different emails to break the discussion
down to small, manageable emails that folks can read easily.

-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:19 AM
> To: v.sharma@ieee.org; Ugo Monaco
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Alessio D'Achille; Daniele Alì; Marco Listanti
> Subject: Re: Draft minutes from Tove:
> draft-dachille-inter-region-path-setup-04.txt
>
>

<snip>


> > A number of the diverse routing/protection etc. drafts are looking
> > at different problems (e.g. draft-decnodder is looking at inter-area
> > link protection, while draft-dachille is looking at diverse inter-region
> > path setup), so it is not clear how a single set of protocol extensions
> > would serve?
>
> Do you really mean inter-region? It seems to me that inter-region
> is really covered by the
> region transit work covered in the two MRN drafts. It is
> relatively unlikely that an LSP
> will start in one region and end in another - the encapsulation
> and adaptation rules to
> achieve that don't look nice. But, perhaps someone has a
> requirement to deploy this?

Wait a minute... there seems a fundamental contradiction above.

So, first things first ...
If what you say is true (that LSPs are unlikely to start in one
region and end in another), why are all of us in
CCAMP working on inter-region LSP issues?