Re: <tewg> <draft-vdbosch-tewg-multiarea-branch-te-00.txt>

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com>]

I disagree that this belongs in the TEWG.  We only specified the
requirements scope on multi-area signalling.  Mechanisms are to be
discussed in CCAMP.

Jim


On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 sven.van_den_bosch@alcatel.be wrote:

>
>
> NAME OF I-D:
>
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vdbosch-tewg-multiarea-branch-te-00.txt
>
>
> SUMMARY
>
> This document proposes an alternative approach to inter-area traffic engineering and path setup. It recognizes the potential issues with current proposals and presents a different approach based on concurrently sending path setup messages. The approach
> allows for fast, efficient path setup across multiple areas without crankback or flooding. It does so without introducing a new protocol or changing the IGP and requires only minimal extensions of the current signaling protocols.
>
> RELATED DOCUMENTS
>
> draft-kompella-mpls-multiarea-te-00.txt
> draft-lee-mpls-path-request-01.txt
> draft-iwata-mpls-crankback-01.txt
> draft-venkatachalam-interarea-mpls-te-02.txt
>
> WHERE DOES IT FIT IN THE PICTURE OF THE SUB-IP WORK
>
> It fits in the tewg.
>
>
> WHY IS IT TARGETED AT THIS WG
>
> It proposes a new technique for setting up inter-area traffic engineered LSPs.
>
> JUSTIFICATION
>
> There is ongoing work in the TE WG to specify inter-area TE techniques and requirements. This document proposes a possible alternative approach to this problem.
>
>
>