Subject: [CCAMP] follow-up on draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-05

From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:49:18 +0000

Hi, CCAMPers, 

   At end of the presentation, a question was raised by Lou that check whether RFC6107 can solve the problem we are trying to address. After discussion offline with co-authors as well as check that RFC, we think that that RFC does not cover what this draft intend to do. The reason is: RFC6107 provide extensions to support to indicate the type of FA-LSP, or to which IGP the FA-LSP is advertised to etc. .  In our draft, we trying to address the problem how a LSP (not necessarily a FA-LSP) can explicitly specify the region change in a MLN/MRN context. 

   As for the question wehther it needs routing extensions, I may not make myself clear enough during the presentation. So i would like to clarify: yes, we need it. Of course, we primarily have in mind using PCE to provide such needed information. But IMHO current scope of "draft-rao-ccamp-mlnmrn-otn-ospfte-ext-02" is generic enough. Would be great to see a generic draft and we are interested to get aligned. 

  Please review our draft and send your comments. Much appreciated.  

Regards,
Xian