Re: FW: draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-01.txt

Hi Kurtis,

Really appreciate your input and comments in several of your emails.  I 
will discuss them with other authors when considering our next revision -03 
and once it is completed, we will email you the new revision, hopefully for 
your continuing input and guidance...

Best Regards,
Raymond

At 06:37 PM 3/14/2003 +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:


>Raymond,
>
>
>>1. How to guarantee bandwidth along a QoS path consisting of multi-AS 
>>segments (including SLA boundary issues) ?
>
>I would be careful to fall into the "we need QoS trap". Be specific in 
>what you mean with Quality. I know this might be obvious, but I rather see 
>it spelled out than create expectations.
>
>>2. How to achieve reliability across inter-AS links/nodes (FRR requirements)
>
>I am not sure inter-AS FRR really belongs into inter-AS TE. Maybe it does, 
>maybe it doesn't. I just think that you might want to think a bit extra 
>about inter-AS FRR.
>
>>5. How to structure business inte-connect agreements such that it would 
>>make sense for both SPs with interconnect requirements.
>>
>>#5 is not the issue for TEWG to look at but #1, 2, 4 and part of #3 
>>certainly are...
>
>Unfortunately that will be the hard part. Much of what you want to achieve 
>could be done without inter-AS TE but have failed due to political 
>reasons. But agreed, that does not belong in the IETF. HOWEVER, what you 
>might want to look at is what parameters you would want in order for a 
>agreement like this to work. In other words, maybe you need other 
>monitoring parameters, other signaling etc.
>
>>>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.
>>
>>The initial objectives of this draft is to be able to address these 
>>issues within our deployment time frames.  Therefore we took on the 
>>initial approach of extending current MPLS intra-AS TE to Inter-AS since 
>>there is already quite a bit of deployment base and operations 
>>experiences  with intra-AS MPLS TE.  I am not sure if there is any known 
>>IP-based TE approaches addressing the above issues today and we may 
>>certainly consider the inter-as requirements for non-mpls or IP-only 
>>based networks in a later stage as we learn more from those SPs with 
>>non-mpls inter-AS TE requirements.
>
>Ok. Using the intra-AS TE as a starting point is probably a good idea. 
>However, as most inter-AS TE today is done without MPLS, you might also 
>want to look at what people are already doing and how you can mirror that.
>
>- kurtis -
>