FW: draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-01.txt
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tewg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550115703A@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> |
More w.r.t. the specific question on if this is timely and usefull work. Thanks, Bert -----Original Message----- From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: maandag 10 maart 2003 17:06 To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Cc: Randy Bush; ops directorate Subject: Re: draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-01.txt ... > Kurtis, thanks for the review. > Now... besides this specific document (which is a possible base > to start work in TE-WG), the specific question I would like > to see answered by you guys from the real OPERATIONAL side is: > > Is it timely to work on inter-AS TE requirements now. I would say yes. But I would also like to see some work done on non-MPLS solutions. > It seems there are even two forms of it: > > Inter-AS but within one (global) provider. > > Inter-AS between multiple providers > (maybe that is better termed Inter-Provider) > > Comments? > Both exists, and I worked with both problems. I don't think that they are different enough from a technical perspective to make to cases. However, from a implementation policy POV they are very different where the second is the hard one. The problem that need to be looked at is as well is if this create more complexity than what you gain from implementing it. I think that the VPN model given in the draft is a good model, but it is at the same time way to simple, as I tried to show. Also, I think that starting with a non MPLS network is easier, and would give hits at what needs to be done for MPLS TE. - kurtis -