Suresh, > > > 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.
Good. So we are in agreement that the katz-yeung draft can support both single area and multi-area TE. > 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. That is correct too. > Inter-area OSPF-TE is a scenario described in > kompella-mpls-multiarea-te for faster convergence in LSP computation. I am not sure which scenario you are referring to. But anyway, this is outside the scope of the present discussion... > 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. And my recommendation is exactly the opposite - start multi-area TE with what is already in the katz-yeung draft, gain some operational experience with it, and then improve this, *if necessary*, based on the experience. But anyway, this is outside the scope of the present discussion... > 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. To avoid any confusion I would suggest to add the following to the katz-yeung draft: It is an explicit non-goal of the solution described in this document to address all possible (as well as impossible) requirements. Therefore, the solution described in this document is clearly not a perfect solution, and as such doesn't quality for being a LTSFGTC (Long Term Solution For Generations To Come). Work on the perfect solution (aka LTSFGTC) is in progress, and is expected to be published in RFC100000. Yakov.
