<... snip> > > My recommendation against using this draft as the basis for > > building further TE-extensions to inter-area and mixed networks > > was in the context of OSPF Autonomous System (AS). I also > > mentioned the draft has scalability limitations in extending this > > to inter-area and mixed networks - also in the context of OSPF AS. > > > > Without going into the details of the "Multi-area MPLS Traffic > > Enginering" draft - The work cited in this draft as going on to > > address multi-area TE is in the MPLS signalling context, not in > > the OSPF. > > As I said in my previous e-mail quite a few scenarios described in > draft-kompella-mpls-multiarea-te-03.txt are supported with the TE > extensions that are subject to this Last Call. That is precisely > while quite a few scenarios in the "Multi-area MPLS Traffic Engineering" > draft do not require any additions to what is already defined > in the katz-yeung draft. > > Yakov.
Yakov, Yes, quite a few scenarios described in kompella-mpls-multiarea-te draft are supported with single-area TE extensions and do not require any additions. And, katz-yeung draft proposal will suffice for single-area TE extensions. katz-yeung draft does not cover dissemination of inter-area TE info (which I was refering to as *inter-area OSPF-TE*). Neither does the draft claim to do so. Inter-area OSPF-TE is a scenario described in kompella-mpls-multiarea-te for faster convergence in LSP computation. In this context - my recommendation to not use katz-yeung draft as the basis to extend to inter-area OSPF-TE was because of its scaling limitation. Neither katz-yeung nor kompella-mpls-multiarea-te drafts address mixed networks. katz-yeung draft has limitations with flooding disruption and topology isolation in a mixed network - both intra-area and inter-area. This was another reason why I recommended to not use katz-yeung draft as the basis to extend to inter-area OSPF-TE. regards, suresh
