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

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

Adrian,

Continuing on ...

> -----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>

> > > I also have the impression that the interest in
> > >implementation is not (yet) very strong.
> >
> > I believe implementation interest will pick up once CCAMP formally
> > states an intent to look at this problem (as has already happened by the
> > structuring of the WG meeting at D.C.).
>
> What I mean is that I do not hear from providers (or vendors)
> that they are currently
> trying to solve this problem in deployed networks. At the moment,
> they are still
> struggling with simple, unprotected inter-AS TE.

I'm not sure why you say that. As far as I can see, both Cisco
and Juniper have been working on various versions of solutions for
the inter-region (inter-domain, which ever is more appropriate)
space for quite a while.

And, 7-odd providers have, after quite some debate, distilled the
requirements for inter-area and inter-AS TE that have come from the
TE WG, so I assume they are interested in having those requirements
be met.

I agree that providers and vendors may currently be focusing on
simple, inter-AS (inter-domain) TE, but the fact that we have
requirements for diverse path routing articulated in the inter-area
and inter-AS requirements documents suggests that this is a problem
they would like to have solutions for.

-Vishal