Re: Minutes and Presentations from TEWG at IETF57
[email protected] Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:11:53 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tewg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
jim, would you please rephrase: > Dmitri P: What new from hierarchy is crossing a region as opposed > to only a technology-driven interface from the hierarchy draft (??) "Dimitri P: What's new here is the rules for crossing a region as opposed to (as specified in the LSP hierarchy draft using the switching capability field of the ISC descriptor sub-TLV) the crossing of a technology boundary to form forwarding adjacencies It would be worth to be expand on this." note: i've asked this because in the case of ABR, AS's it is clear, but for gmpls-overlay i would think that a clearer def. for region crossing would be advisable ? this i-d mentions: "The solution, therefore, also aims to be applicable to the GMPLS overlay model ([GMPLS-OVERLAY]), where the client requesting the LSP setup would belong to a region different from the core network region." Taking the following example is the boundary at the Edge_Node, the Core_Node (or both) or at the Edge-to-Core boundary ? Edge_Node --- Core_Node --- ... --- Core_Node --- Edge_Node as notice in gmpls-overlay which refers to the lsp-hierarchy i-d the former is assumed (since using the "technology boundary" between the Edge and the Core node) thus should i infer here that it refers to the Core_Node here (it seems to be the case, from explanations received offline)? but clarifications wouldn't hurt anyway thanks, - dimitri. Jim Boyle wrote: > They are available at wwww.pdnets.com/ietf/tewg/ietf57 > > thanks! > > Jim > > -- Papadimitriou Dimitri E-mail : [email protected] Private: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html E-mail : [email protected] Public : http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/ Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone : +32 3 240-8491