Subject: [CCAMP] Routing Area Tuning - What I heard

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:32:25 +0100

Hi,

[Please respond on [email-masked] even though I am spamming several
lists]

Thanks for the input on this topic.

I heard a number of opinions about whether to split TE architecture away from
RSVP-TE. I think this leads to some roughish consensus as follows:

TEAS
- core RSVP-TE
- RSVP-TE for generic cases
- IGP-TE extensions in coordination with IGP WGs
- TE architecture
   - including the applicability of PCE for TE in association with PCE WG
- relationships with
   - OSPF and ISIS as above
   - PCE as above
   - MPLS for generalisation of packet-specific protocol extensions
   - CCAMP for generalisation of non-packet-specific protocol extensions

CCAMP
- non-packet technology-specific RSVP-TE
- non-packet technology-specific IGP-TE in association with IGP WGs
- consideration to generalise all protocol extensions via TEAS

That leaves...

MPLS as it is today, except:
- All RSVP-TE work that is not technology-specific for packet goes to TEAS
- Any TE architecture work goes to TEAS

PCE as it is today, except:
- Architectural application of PCE for TE goes to TEAS with coord back to PCE

Can you please let me know whether I misheard you badly. Is this a split you can
live with? Are there show-stopper issues?

Thanks,
Adrian