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
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
- 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