<... 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