[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FW: draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-01.txt



Hi Kurtis,

Really appreciate your input and comments in several of your emails. I will discuss them with other authors when considering our next revision -03 and once it is completed, we will email you the new revision, hopefully for your continuing input and guidance...

Best Regards,
Raymond

At 06:37 PM 3/14/2003 +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:


Raymond,


1. How to guarantee bandwidth along a QoS path consisting of multi-AS segments (including SLA boundary issues) ?
I would be careful to fall into the "we need QoS trap". Be specific in what you mean with Quality. I know this might be obvious, but I rather see it spelled out than create expectations.

2. How to achieve reliability across inter-AS links/nodes (FRR requirements)
I am not sure inter-AS FRR really belongs into inter-AS TE. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I just think that you might want to think a bit extra about inter-AS FRR.

5. How to structure business inte-connect agreements such that it would make sense for both SPs with interconnect requirements.

#5 is not the issue for TEWG to look at but #1, 2, 4 and part of #3 certainly are...
Unfortunately that will be the hard part. Much of what you want to achieve could be done without inter-AS TE but have failed due to political reasons. But agreed, that does not belong in the IETF. HOWEVER, what you might want to look at is what parameters you would want in order for a agreement like this to work. In other words, maybe you need other monitoring parameters, other signaling etc.

I think that the
VPN model given in the draft is a good model, but it is at the same
time way to simple, as I tried to show. Also, I think that starting
with a non MPLS network is easier, and would give hits at what needs to
be done for MPLS TE.
The initial objectives of this draft is to be able to address these issues within our deployment time frames. Therefore we took on the initial approach of extending current MPLS intra-AS TE to Inter-AS since there is already quite a bit of deployment base and operations experiences with intra-AS MPLS TE. I am not sure if there is any known IP-based TE approaches addressing the above issues today and we may certainly consider the inter-as requirements for non-mpls or IP-only based networks in a later stage as we learn more from those SPs with non-mpls inter-AS TE requirements.
Ok. Using the intra-AS TE as a starting point is probably a good idea. However, as most inter-AS TE today is done without MPLS, you might also want to look at what people are already doing and how you can mirror that.

- kurtis -