RE: Inter Area Requirements - draft-boyle-tewg-interarea-reqts-01.txt

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <gash@att.com>]

Jim,

> > 2. Section 3.3, first sentence: "Facility protection of a 
> > single link is necessarily intra-area and not applicable to 
> > inter-area discussions."
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean here.  Many links are routed 
> > through a given transport facility, and these links could 
> > well be in different areas.  It seems that facility protection ala 
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-02.txt 
> > will be affected by inter-area TE?  This should be clarified.

> My point was that when one uses bypass protection, it is usually just
> to protect the next downstream link.  In this case, it acts a bit like
> SONET BLSR.  However looking at the protocol draft
> draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt, it's clear that at least
> the protocol allows you to try to use bypass LSPs in other situations
> (E.g. protect downstream link and node, bundle LSPs together that go
> past the node after the dowstream node).  So I guess the sentence you
> quote up there is too limited, and as such there's really not a big
> need to explain it.  I'll strike that, and change the next sentence
> from "Per-path protection is necessary" to "LSP protection is
> necessary...".
>
> does that address your concern?

Yes it does, thanks.

Regards,
Jerry