RE: Last call comments: draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-01.txt
"Vishal Sharma" <[email protected]> Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:47:35 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ccamp,gmane.ietf.tewg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
JP, Adrian, et al, Quick question in-line. -Vishal > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean Philippe Vasseur [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 8:41 AM > To: Adrian Farrel > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Arthi > Ayyangar; LE ROUX Jean-Louis FTRD/DAC/LAN; [email protected]; TE; CCAMP > Subject: Re: Last call comments: > draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-01.txt > > <<snip>> > >The issue clearly gets fuzzy when the LSP traverses part of the network > >that is out of the > >originating SP's direct control (i.e. another AS). But here we > are talking > >only about > >areas. > > But as you know the solutions will apply to both inter-area and inter-AS. > Actually, this is something that I've been wondering about as the discussion on inter-area has progressed. Is there expected to be a separate document detailing inter-AS requirements? Given that the framework and other related drafts are jointly addressing inter-area and inter-AS issues, how come the requirements document(s) is not? Perhaps I missed some of this evolution, but if someone could shed some light on this, that would be appreciated.