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

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

Hi,

> 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.

Fair enough.

> > > 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?

I think this is just a terminology issue.
"Region" got stolen by the hierarchy draft.
   The information carried in the Interface Switching Capabilities is
   used to construct LSP regions, and determine regions' boundaries as
   follows.
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt section 7.

This is confirmed in draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-00.txt

Thus, when trying to consolidate the work within CCAMP I picked "domain" which seemed to
be largely unused around GMPLS. In draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-00.txt we
have...
   For the purposes of this document, a domain is considered to be any
   collection of network elements within a common sphere of address
   management or path computational responsibility. Examples of such
   domains include IGP areas and Autonomous Systems.

As an aside, nested domains are currently out of scope of
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-00.txt because they are simply treated using FAs.
There is, therefore a clear overlap between nested domains and regions.

A