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

Hi Jerry,

At 11:23 AM 6/28/2003 -0500, Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS wrote:
>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).

sure this is why I said, "several" ;-) By the way, even if an SP have both, 
this does not mean that they need both inter-area and inter-AS TE ?

>   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 we're in sync !

Fee free to provide your comments on the ET WG req of inter-AS TE.

Thanks.

JP.

>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