headers
Greg Mirsky | 1 Feb 2007 20:58

RE: A New Internet-Draft on Advertising of inter-AS TE links

Dear Zhang,
I have couple questions related to Link ID of inter-AS link. According to the document it is the Router ID of
Remote ASBR. My question:
- as I understand the mechanism of how TE information for links R6-R9 and R8-R10 is populated into R5's TE DB
is outside the scope of this document. I this mechanism is not IGP but EGP (BGP), then what is the benefit to
introduce new LSA in IGP (OSPF) and not use exisitng mechanisms.

	Regards,
		Greg

PS. I think that OSPF WG needs to be informed as well.

-----Original Message-----
From: Zhang Renhai [mailto:zhangrenhai <at> huawei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:38 PM
To: ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org; pce <at> ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] A New Internet-Draft on Advertising of inter-AS TE links

Hi, allWe have just submitted the following draft in which we describe some problemsin inter-AS TE
scenarios and the corresponding OSPF extension is introduced.PCE environment is also considerd in this
I-d so I'd also like pce working groupto pay attention to it.we'd highly appreciate your comments.Thanks
a lot,Zhang Renhai & Mach A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.

	Title		: OSPF Extensions in Support of Inter-AS (G)MPLS TE 
	Author(s)	: M. Chen, R. Zhang
	Filename	: draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-00.txt
	Pages		: 9
	Date		: 2007-1-30
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Mach Chen | 2 Feb 2007 02:14
Favicon

Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt

Hi,

We have just submitted the second revision of our I-D,draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extensions.

The problem we are trying to solve is how a PCE or entry-point ASBR can select the exit-point ASBR for a TE LSP
when it knows (from the ERO) the downstream AS or the downstream ASBR. We believe that IGP needs to flood the
inter-AS TE links together with additional information about the neighboring AS and ASBR. The problem
arises for both the pd-path and brpc computation methods.

We would welcome your input on our problem statement and our proposed solution.

Best regards,

Mach & Renhai

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org>
To: <i-d-announce <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 4:50 AM
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt

>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> 
> 
> Title : OSPF Extensions in Support of Inter-AS (G)MPLS TE
> Author(s) : M. Chen, R. Zhang
> Filename : draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt
> Pages : 11
> Date : 2007-2-1
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mach Chen | 2 Feb 2007 02:18
Favicon

Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt

Hi,

We have just submitted the second revision of our I-D,draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extensions.

The problem we are trying to solve is how a PCE or entry-point ASBR can select the exit-point ASBR for a TE LSP
when it knows (from the ERO) the downstream AS or the downstream ASBR. We believe that IGP needs to flood the
inter-AS TE links together with additional information about the neighboring AS and ASBR. The problem
arises for both the pd-path and brpc computation methods.

We would welcome your input on our problem statement and our proposed solution.

Best regards,

Mach & Renhai

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org>
To: <i-d-announce <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 4:50 AM
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt

>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> 
> 
> Title : OSPF Extensions in Support of Inter-AS (G)MPLS TE
> Author(s) : M. Chen, R. Zhang
> Filename : draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt
> Pages : 11
> Date : 2007-2-1
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Zhang Renhai | 2 Feb 2007 03:35
Favicon

Re: A New Internet-Draft on Advertising of inter-AS TE links

Hi, Greg

Thanks a lot for your question.
See inline please.

Dear Zhang,
I have couple questions related to Link ID of inter-AS link. According to the document it is the Router ID of
Remote ASBR. 
[ZRH]Yes, and this can be easily got by manual configuration in the local ASBR.

My question:
- as I understand the mechanism of how TE information for links R6-R9 and R8-R10 is populated into R5's TE DB
is outside the scope of this document. I this mechanism is not IGP but EGP (BGP), then what is the benefit to
introduce new LSA in IGP (OSPF) and not use exisitng mechanisms.

[ZRH]I think BGP could also be another alternative especially for PCE scenario, but it's not very
applicable to per-domian method because the inter-AS TE information may be needed throughout the local
AS in case that the path computation function is distributed among LSRs in the local AS, and BGP can hardly
advertise the TE information among those LSRs if BGP sessions are not established between the ASBR and
those LSRs. So IGP extension is considered in this draft.

We have submitted the revised version of this draft, hoping make the problem statement more clear, and
relax the use of type 11 opaque lsa, also allow Type 10 lsa (by which the advertising scope is an area of OSPF).
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt

Cheers,
Zhang Renhai

Regards,
Greg
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Vijayanand C - TLS, Chennai. | 2 Feb 2007 08:30
Picon
Favicon

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt


The draft does not seem to address multi-access links between ASes.
Should the inter-AS link only be a point to point link or you are trying
to model multi-access links as multiple P2P links ( in which case B.W
calculations etc would not be straightforward)

Regards
Vijay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf
> Of Mach Chen
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 6:49 AM
> To: ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Fw: I-D
ACTION:draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt
> 
> Hi,
> 
> We have just submitted the second revision of our
I-D,draft-chen-ccamp-
> ospf-interas-te-extensions.
> 
> The problem we are trying to solve is how a PCE or entry-point ASBR
can
> select the exit-point ASBR for a TE LSP when it knows (from the ERO)
the
> downstream AS or the downstream ASBR. We believe that IGP needs to
flood
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Mach Chen | 2 Feb 2007 11:19
Favicon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt

Hi vijay,

First, thanks for your questions.

So far this version doesn't mention inter-as multi-access links, an alternative method, as you said, 
of describing this kind of links is to treat them as multiple P2P links. I will supplement this description
in the future revised version.

Best regards,

Mach

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vijayanand C - TLS, Chennai." <vijayc <at> hcl.in>
To: "Mach Chen" <mach <at> huawei.com>; <ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:30 PM
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt

The draft does not seem to address multi-access links between ASes.
Should the inter-AS link only be a point to point link or you are trying
to model multi-access links as multiple P2P links ( in which case B.W
calculations etc would not be straightforward)

Regards
Vijay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf
> Of Mach Chen
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Adrian Farrel | 2 Feb 2007 20:41
Picon

Re: A New Internet-Draft on Advertising of inter-AS TE links

Hi all,

>> I have couple questions related to Link ID
>> of inter-AS link. According to the document
>> it is the Router ID of Remote ASBR.

To be precise, the I-D says "TE Router ID". I think the difference is very 
important.

> [ZRH]Yes, and this can be easily got by manual
> configuration in the local ASBR.
>
>> My question:
>> - as I understand the mechanism of how TE
>> information for links R6-R9 and R8-R10 is
>> populated into R5's TE DB is outside the
>> scope of this document. I this mechanism
>> is not IGP but EGP (BGP), then what is the
>> benefit to introduce new LSA in IGP (OSPF)
>> and not use exisitng mechanisms.

I think you mean R8-R9 (at least in the latest revision of the I-D).

When you say an "existing mechanism" I don't think there is any mechanism 
for advertising TE information in BGP although there are proposed 
extensions. But there would be two issues:

1. How to stop the information propagating further than AS2 (AS1 does not 
want/need to know about the inter-AS links between AS2 and AS3). I guess we 
could use the new AS_PATHLIMIT stuff.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Adrian Farrel | 2 Feb 2007 21:05
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt

Hmmm.

Question: Does anyone use multi-access TE links between ASes?

If so, we should address them (probably the same way that we address them 
within an AS/area - that is by defining a separate link type). But if no-one 
uses them, then we should leave that definition until there is a need.

I see that section 3.2 of Mach's I-D is very explicit that the new link type 
is p2p, so that is good.

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mach Chen" <mach <at> huawei.com>
To: "Vijayanand C - TLS, Chennai." <vijayc <at> hcl.in>
Cc: <ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt

> Hi vijay,
>
> First, thanks for your questions.
>
> So far this version doesn't mention inter-as multi-access links, an 
> alternative method, as you said,
> of describing this kind of links is to treat them as multiple P2P links. I 
> will supplement this description
> in the future revised version.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Adrian Farrel | 3 Feb 2007 16:22
Picon

Fw: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 68th IETF Meeting in Prague, Czech Republic

Heads up.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ietf-secretariat <at> ietf.org>
To: <ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:00 AM
Subject: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 68th IETF Meeting 
in Prague, Czech Republic

> There are two (2) Internet-Draft cutoff dates for the 68th
> IETF Meeting in Prague, Czech Republic:
>
> February 26th: Cutoff Date for Initial (i.e., version -00)
> Internet-Draft Submissions
>
> All initial Internet-Drafts (version -00) must be submitted by Monday,
> February 26th at 9:00 AM ET. As always, all initial submissions with a
> filename beginning with "draft-ietf" must be approved by the
> appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or announced.  The
> Secretariat would appreciate receiving WG Chair approval by Monday,
> February 19th at 9:00 AM ET.
>
> March 5th: Cutoff Date for Revised (i.e., version -01 and higher)
> Internet-Draft Submissions
>
> All revised Internet-Drafts (version -01 and higher) must be submitted
> by Monday, March 5th at 9:00 AM ET.
>
> Initial and revised Internet-Drafts received after their respective
> cutoff dates will not be made available in the Internet-Drafts
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Adrian Farrel | 4 Feb 2007 12:52
Picon

Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-03.txt

Hi,

As promised, I have done a review of this I-D to help the authors prepare it
 for WG last call. In my opinion, the draft is in pretty good shape, but
 there are a few minor issues.

 If the authors can submit a new version to address these comments and those 
raised on the list resently, we can
 take the I-D forward.

 Thanks,
Adrian

===

Authors' details.

Need to update Arthi's contact details.

===

Boilerplate

Need the new IETF Trust boilerplate

===

Intended status

Why is this Standard Track?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane