Hi Yakov, On Oct 10, 2007, at 5:10 PM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
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 LabelYakov, 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.
On the first question, I do not think that there is yet a CCAMP consensus (on both drafts by the way). Furthermore, if we can agree to simply reuse the IGP-TE TLVs to be carried in BGP for the "PE-CE" links we are effectively merging the two IDs, which I had proposed to do since a single draft would
then serve both applications and may be future ones. Makes sense ? Cheers. JP.
Yakov.