Re: draft-ietf-tewg-restore-hierarchy-00.txt -> CCAMP OCT-12

[Jim Boyle <jimpb@nc.rr.com>]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Florian-Daniel Otel wrote:
> With the risk of sounding like a bitter whiner, do I
> mis-read the draft (and the group) or it is a 24 pages long equivalent
> for "We're pretty happy with what there is, just give us standardized
> inter-area signaling " ?
>
>
> Yours bluntly,
>
> Florian

Oh no, that would only take 10 pages :)  I agree that many drafts do have
too many words.

In addition to the inter-area, don't forget the restoration stuff, which
was more widely agreed upon (and better defined).

There is a summarization in the introduction section which reads:

   Here is a summary of the findings:

   A. Survivability Requirements

   @ need to define a small set of interoperable survivability
     approaches in packet and non-packet networks
   @ suggested survivability mechanisms include
     -  1:1 path protection with pre-established backup capacity (non-
         shared)
     -  1:1 path protection with pre-planned backup capacity (shared)
     -  local restoration with repairs in proximity to the network
         fault
     -  path restoration through source-based rerouting
   @ timing bounds for service restoration to support voice call cutoff
     (140 msec to 2 sec), protocol timer requirements in premium data
     services, and mission critical applications
   @ use of restoration priority for service differentiation

   B. Hierarchy Requirements

   B.1. Horizontally Oriented Hierarchy (Intra-Domain)

   @ ability to set up many LSPs in a service provider network with
     hierarchical IGP, for the support layer 2 and layer 3 VPN services

   @ requirements for multi-area traffic engineering need to be
     developed to provide guidance for any necessary protocol
     extensions

regards,

Jim




On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Florian-Daniel Otel wrote:

>
> Jim, all
>
> > Note that this draft has some changes, in particular. the hierarchy
> > requirements have been pulled back a bit.
>
> >         Hierarchy
> >         (1) extremely large number of LSPs within flat IGPs
> >         (2)  ability to signal LSPs across IGP hierarchy (e.g. OSPF areas)
>
> > (1) has been dropped, (2) is still there.
>
> > Other portions of the document have been cleaned up, and the editors are
> > encouraged to highlight the differences between the draft to the list.
>
> > On October 12th, Ed and I intend to notify CCAMP that the requirements for
> > restoration and hierarchy from the TEWG are complete.  Going once .....
>
> > thanks,
>
> > Jim
>
> With the risk of sounding like a bitter whiner, do I
> mis-read the draft (and the group) or it is a 24 pages long equivalent
> for "We're pretty happy with what there is, just give us standardized
> inter-area signaling " ?
>
>
> Yours bluntly,
>
> Florian
>
>
>