Hi Jerry,
At 11:23 AM 6/28/2003 -0500, Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS wrote:
JP,
> >General comments:
> >I'm glad you're providing inter-area TE requirements. I agree that both
> >inter-area TE and inter-AS TE should be progressed together, and
would not
> >favor progressing inter-AS TE without also progressing inter-area TE. It
> >would seem if a SP needed inter-AS TE, they would usually also need
> >inter-area TE.
> Well no. I'm of course not against the idea of working on inter-area TE
> reqs but stating that the SPs that need Inter-AS TE also need
inter-area is
> not correct. Several SPs have multiple ASes and single IGP area/level in
> each AS.
Certainly not *all* SPs who have multiple AS's also have a single
area/level in each (e.g., AT&T).
sure this is why I said, "several" ;-) By the way, even if an SP have
both, this does not mean that they need both inter-area and inter-AS TE ?
Further, George Swallow stated in an MPLS WG meeting that many SPs
were requesting inter-area TE. I'm glad that you agree with the need
for both inter-area TE and inter-AS TE to be progressed.
> the question on whether to combine the requirements of inter-area
> and inter-AS in the same document has been raised on the TEWG list and I
> think that there was a majority stating that there should be separate
> documents (NTT-C, EQUANT, FRANCE TELECOM, INFONET, SBC, ...).
I also stated on the TEWG list that inter-area and inter-AS TE should be
progressed separately, but in parallel.
So we're in sync !
May be we can get together in Vienna to scope out some specifics on this
parallel track ?