User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210
Kenji Kumaki wrote:
I think the latter is correct.
We need to extend a existing protocol(e.g. RSVP-TE) because a current
RSVP-TE can't cover an inter-AS TE.
What makes you say that?
I don't think current implementations can support this. But RFC 3209
includes inter-AS provisions.
See section 7.4.
One of the EXPLICIT_ROUTE subtypes is an AS number. If one of these is
present in an EXPLICIT_ROUTE object, then the abstract node represented
is the entirity of the specified ASN.
Implementations should treat this in a similar fashion to how they treat
an IP subnet ERO subobejct. If it's the first subobject, then the
router must be in that ASN. If it's the subobject corresponding to the
next-hop, then it should use that ASN to determine the next hop along
the path to that ASN. If the node is strict, then the next-hop address
should be a part of that ASN.
I'm not sure if BGP provides sufficient information for generating a
topology of ASNs (needed for generating an AS-hop-path). An extension
of some form might be necessary for this to work. But that would be a
routing extension, not an RSVP extension. And it would only be
necessary if you want to dynamically generate inter-AS explicit routes -
a feature of dubious utility to begin with.