Re: TE-operator call for presentations/input (multi-area)

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com>]

The request is for anything that folks feel they require beyond RFC3386.
If that's multi-area only, fine, if it's multi-as only, fine.
If it's both, fine. Your draft has proven useful in being a catylyst
for this topic in general.

thanks,

Jim


On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Jean Philippe Vasseur wrote:

> Hi Ed,
> 
> I think your request is really legitimate. Now I'd just like to reenforce 
> the fact that the requirements for inter-AS and multi-area should not be 
> mixed as they are pretty much different. So the requirements for inter-AS 
> TE are discussed in draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-01.txt (we'll publish 
> the next revision this week) and your question specifically refers to the 
> requirements for multi-area, correct ?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> JP.
> 
> At 15:08 25/02/2003 -0500, Ed Kern wrote:
> 
> 
> >We are starting to take the first steps in the direction of defining
> >requirements for multi-area TE.
> >
> >
> >This was not fully fleshed out in Network Hierarchy and Multilayer
> >Survivability (RFC3386) for several reasons.  At the time, the
> >chairs, AD's, design team and WG simply werent sure if this was
> >necessary or that if there was enough operator need to properly scope
> >this work.
> >
> >Currently on the list we have been discussing requirements in the
> >context of draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-01.txt.  Before we proceed
> >much further, the chairs would like to hear from operators who are:
> >
> >1. *Currently* in need of a multi-area solution on a production
> >2. Currently deploying a version/flavor of multi-area TE.
> >3. Waiting on a standard/guidance before planning/deploying
> >4. Feel that these requirements should be scoped out regardless of
> >    current operational requirements.
> >
> >This is not an attempt to rope you into assisting with the current
> >draft but more a request to:
> >
> >1. Present current protocol limitations/concerns at next ietf
> >2. Discuss them on the list here
> >
> >We are specifically trying to target front-line engineering and
> >operational efforts.  We understand that from an architectural
> >perspective, having the path to multi-area and multi-as solutions
> >is desirable.  However, we are uncertain how much of this is pulling
> >up into *real* obstacles at this time.
> >
> >Ed & Jim
>