Re: Multi-AS needs : draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-02.txt

[Jean Philippe Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>]

Hi Jim,

At 12:10 04/03/2003 -0500, Jim Boyle wrote:

> It seems to me that there are a few different
> requirements in this draft, 

well I think there are a set of common requirements applying to
different scenarios.

taking a look at the scenarios in section 4, we have

1) Virtual POP - extend network through another's, place your
        edge router (PE) in someone elses POP w/o direct connectivity
        to your network.

2) Similar to 4.1, but in this case virtually extend your edge port
        onto another providers router (or all the way to customer).

3) CE to CE w/ QOS quarantees from multiple providers

4) Multi-AS TE within one Provider (e.g. global)

5) Extend one's network through another

Scenarios 1-3 and 5 to me just seem to be inter-provider VPN requirements
(w/ a little QoS for flavor). 

I'll let SPs speak up on this but in short the answer is "no",
the main requirement is indeed about bandwidth guaranty (among some other
requirements), not just connectivity, that's the point.

> So it seems the bulk of the discussion 
> should happen elsewhere, right?

I'm not sure to follow you there ... I thought there was an agreement on
the fact that inter-AS TE requirements fit in the TE WG and so the
remaining question was: "Is this draft representative of inter-AS TE
requirements and so should be adopted as a TE WG requirements
?"

> Scenario 4 looks right up our alley
> though.  So I have to ask - what about 
> current protocol specifications limits you from trying a few different
> approaches to Multi-AS TE?

Section 5 of the draft is dedicated to the list of requirements, it seems
pretty straightforward that current intra-AS TE solution cannot address
those requirements. Do you have a different view ?

Thanks.

JP.

> thanks,
>
> Jim