Re: accepting draft-fedyk-bgp-te-attribute-02.txt as a CCAMP WG document

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

JP,

> >>>>> 2. Could you conceive of using your I-D to meet the requirements
> >>>>> of the Vasseur I-D?
> >>>> In order for me to answer this question I'd like to get a clear
> >>>> description of the requirements of the Vasseur I-D.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not trying to fight JP's battles for him.
> >>> Just trying to find out whether we have two problem spaces or one.
> >>>
> >>> I think the abstract of his I-D is relatively clear:
> >>>
> >>>   This document proposes MP-BGP protocol extension so as to convey
> >>>   Traffic Engineering Link characterictics of PE (Provider Edge)  
> >>> - CE
> >>>   (Customer Edge) links in order to extend the visibility of the
> >>>   Traffic Engineering Database to those links.  This can then be  
> >>> used
> >>>   to more efficiently compute CE-to-CE Traffic Engineering Label
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yakov, let me know if you need further clarification on the
> >> application ... sounds
> >> pretty obvious, extend the TED to some PE-CE links where a CE to CE
> >> TE LSP
> >> is needed. The path computation piece is then very much similar to
> >> inter-domain TE (per domain, PCE, ...).
> >
> > Given the above I could conceive of using the BGP TE attribute, as
> > defined in draft-fedyk-bgp-te-attribute, to meet the requirements
> > of your I-D. I hope that answers Adrian's question.
> 
> Well for the CE to CE application, we need all TE link attribute for  
> the PE-CE links, thus our proposal to reuse the TE link attributes  
> already defined for the IGPs ?

If there is a CCAMP WG consensus to add additional information to
what is currently specified in the BGP TE attribute the authors of
draft-fedyk-bgp-te-attribute have no problems with adding this info
to what is presently specified in draft-fedyk-bgp-te-attribute.

Yakov.