[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Inter-area cspf
At 14:21 19/03/2003 -0500, email@example.com wrote:
One comment first: this PCC-PCS draft tries to address multiple problems
applicable to very different scenarios (inter-area, inter-AS, GMPLS,
intra-area with off-line computation, ...). As a result, this might give
the impression that quite a substantial number of objects are required for
each scenario which is definitely not the case. I guess this is where your
feeling that we "overload" RSVP might come from. So the plan is to post a
completely new version of this draft. I'm just waiting for the CCAMP
charter update and I'm hopping that the motivation for the choice of RSVP
for PCC-PCS will more clearly appear.
The draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-03.txt suggests overload RSVP
message to query path request/response between
path server and client. Why RSVP should be overloaded when
it does not involve RSVP signalling. Why can't we use some plain
client-server model instead of overloading RSVP in a scenario which is not
related to RSVP. I came across one
more draft-lee-mpls-path-request-04.txt which is just a plain
Can you please clarify issues involving these two methods.
Then, your comments on this new version will be very welcome.
I do see draft-kompella-mpls-multiarea-te-03.txt expired. What is the
status of this draft? Does any one have idea regarding the implementions
for multi-area TE/CSPF among vendors?
Related to draft-kompella-mpls-multiarea-te, we will resurrect it. Let's
wait for the update on the CCAMP charter.
I won't comment on those lists on vendor implementations but yes there are
Can any one clarify?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jean Philippe Vasseur <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:11:12 -0800
To: "Bhaskara Peela" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Inter-area cspf
> FYI, if you're interested by multi-area TE, you might want to consider:
> For PCS-PCC signalling (scenarios 2,4 and 5 on of the previous draft) see:
> At 15:06 18/03/2003 -0500, Bhaskara Peela wrote:
> >[ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy
> > and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers. if you wish to
> > post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list,
> > message to <listname>-firstname.lastname@example.org and ask to have the alternate
> > address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
> > automatically accepted. ]
> >Can any one update me about the status of following drafts
> >I would like to know what is the latest ongoing standadization process
> >inter-area OSPF-TE LSA flooding
> >for CSPF calculation for GMPLS or MPLS.
> >thank you
> >Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com