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

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com>]

Why can't strict trans-as qos gaurentees be obtained today?

Is the reason technical or "other"?



On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, LE ROUX Jean-Louis FTRD/DAC/LAN wrote:

> Hi Jim and all
> 
> 
> >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?
> 
> One of the various applications of inter-AS MPLS-TE is the provisioning
> of L2VPN services with PEs located in two distinct ASs.
> Typically such services have strict end-to-end QoS requirements that can
> definitively not be ensured with current intra AS TE mechanisms.
> Indeed a combination of intra-AS TE deployment cannot provide e2e TE,
> e2e QoS, inter-AS link protection, ASBR protection,...
> 
> Regards
> 
> JL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Jim Boyle [mailto:jboyle@pdnets.com]
> Envoye : mardi 4 mars 2003 18:11
> A : te-wg@ops.ietf.org
> Objet : Multi-AS needs : draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-02.txt
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are a few different requirements in this
> draft, 
> 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).  So it seems the bulk of the discussion 
> should happen elsewhere, right?
> 
> 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?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
>