RE: New I-D on inter-area (and inter-as) MPLS TE requirements

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <gash@att.com>]

JP,

> >General comments:
> >I'm glad you're providing inter-area TE requirements.  I agree that both 
> >inter-area TE and inter-AS TE should be progressed together, and would not 
> >favor progressing inter-AS TE without also progressing inter-area TE.  It 
> >would seem if a SP needed inter-AS TE, they would usually also need 
> >inter-area TE.

> Well no. I'm of course not against the idea of working on inter-area TE 
> reqs but stating that the SPs that need Inter-AS TE also need inter-area is 
> not correct. Several SPs have multiple ASes and single IGP area/level in 
> each AS.

Certainly not *all* SPs who have multiple AS's also have a single area/level in each (e.g., AT&T).  Further, George Swallow stated in an MPLS WG meeting that many SPs were requesting inter-area TE.  I'm glad that you agree with the need for both inter-area TE and inter-AS TE to be progressed.  

> the question on whether to combine the requirements of inter-area 
> and inter-AS in the same document has been raised on the TEWG list and I 
> think that there was a majority stating that there should be separate 
> documents (NTT-C, EQUANT, FRANCE TELECOM, INFONET, SBC, ...).

I also stated on the TEWG list that inter-area and inter-AS TE should be progressed separately, but in parallel.  So if you're associating individuals with SPs, you could also deduce 'AT&T' in the above 'majority' list.  Others agreed that we should progress both in parallel.  

I'm glad that Jim restarted the inter-area TE requirements effort, which you and I and several others first initiated in TEWG a while back.

Jerry