[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

comment on draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-framework-requirement-01

Subject: comment on draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-framework-requirement-01
From: Lou Berger
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:26:56 -0700
Per Alex's request:

My point was that it would be useful to have a requirements document that:
1) identified the issues with today's solutions
2) identified operational requirements for an alternate solution

The document has a good start (or however Dave phrased id) of 1 in section 3.
The document has a start on 2, but does so only in the context of a
particular solution/approach, i.e., "Composite Transport Group
Requirements". For example the document states:
   Transport Group (CTG) provides the local traffic engineering
   management/transport over multiple parallel links that solves this
   problem in MPLS networks.  ....
   Composite Transport Group (CTG) is the TE method to transport
   aggregated traffic over a composite link. ....

I think it would be really useful to identify the carrier requirements independent of the CTG solution. For example the document could state:
- the solution must support multiple component links with different
  administrative costs
- the solution must support multiple routing instances per router
- the solution must support RSVP-TE LSPs
- the solution must support LDP LSPs

Once there is a clear understanding of requirements we can judge if the proposed solution is the one that the community wants to progress (or if there are alternatives.)
Hope this clarifies the point.

rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • comment on draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-framework-requirement-01, Lou Berger <=