RE: Inter Area Requirements - draft-boyle-tewg-interarea-reqts-01.txt
"Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <[email protected]> Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:28:43 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tewg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <9473683187ADC049A855ED2DA739ABCA02BA375F@KCCLUST06EVS1.ugd.att.com> |
[Re-send, doesn't seem to have made it to the list] Jim, > Please review and comment, I also would like to resubmit this as a WG > document (incorporating wg feedback of course). > > We have nothing covering these, and it would be good to send something in > this area forward to CCAMP along with the inter-as requirements. Agreed. I support as a WG document. Here are a couple of comments: 1. Section 3.1, 2nd paragraph. I suggest you add a reference to the [CRANKBACK] draft: "In overview, the requirements below call for what may be called a crankback method [CRANKBACK] which employs head end direction for regional optimization." Reference: [CRANKBACK] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-crankback-00.txt 2. Section 3.3, first sentence: "Facility protection of a single link is necessarily intra-area and not applicable to inter-area discussions." I'm not sure what you mean here. Many links are routed through a given transport facility, and these links could well be in different areas. It seems that facility protection ala http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-02.txt will be affected by inter-area TE? This should be clarified. Thanks, Jerry