Re: Last call for draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-01.txt

> I accept that full leakage of all TE information in a dynamic way 
> would almost certainly
> have a major impact on IGP scalbility.
>
> I do not accept that some carefully considered leaking of aggregated 
> TE information on a
> sparse timer basis would necessarily have such a dire impact.
>
> This is why I want the requirements draft to tell me what impact on 
> the IGP I am allowed
> to have and leave CCAMP to derive a solution that fits that 
> requirement. I don't think it
> is right to tell CCAMP what solutions it may or may not consider.
>


Operator hat on:

I would very much like to see it be a requirement that no information 
is leaked
without specific configuration.  Further, I would very much like to see
implementations give us reasonable granularity (and reasonable 
abstraction) in
what we choose to leak.

As an example, I would like to be able to leak detailed topology 
information from
my IS-IS L2 database down into an L1 area.  I would NOT want to leak 
bandwidth
information.  I would want to leak an abstraction of another L1 area 
down into an
L1 area, but I would definitely want that to be an abstraction, NOT the 
full
database.

I am not interested in perfect optimality.  I am interested in what can 
be
achieved with a limited amount of overhead.  It is very clear that 
there cannot be
any improvements without some impact on IGP scalability.  If nothing 
else, every
byte in an LSA/LSP counts towards router memory consumption.  Thus, we 
have a
tradeoff that we need to make and perfect optimality is not a 
reasonable goal in
light of limited scalability.  Good returns can be had by leaking 
information
that is topologically "close by" and abstracting distant information.  
If
necessary, this can be supplemented by path manipulation along the way.

Regards,
Tony