1. Extensions to OSPF-TE for Inter-AS TE draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt Mach Chen(mach@huawei.com) Renhai Zhang(zhangrenhai@huawei.com) IETF 69#, CCAMP WG Chicago 07/24/2007

2. Changes since Prague meeting(ietf 68th)  Adopted as a WG document  A new section, Section 2.1: “A Note on Non-Objectives”, is added to clarify some concerns about this I-D. Make a clearly statement about “Not to do” in this document  A new section (Section 7), Acknowledgments, is added to thank Adrian, Acee, JP, and Dean Cheng for their review and comments.  Update references and add some new essential references ( according to the comments from Acee)  Some wording and formats changes to fix some nits IETF 69#, CCAMP WG Chicago 07/24/2007

3. Changes since Prague meeting(cont.)  Address a technical point from Jean-Louis Le Roux about Link ID sub-TLV (should not be limited to TE Router ID) Re-write the description about Link ID sub-TLV: From: “For an inter-AS link, the Link ID carried in the Link ID sub-TLV is the TE Router ID of the remote ASBR reached through this inter-AS link.” TO: “For an inter-AS link, the Link ID carried in the Link ID sub-TLV is the remote ASBR identifier which could be any address of the remote ASBR (i.e. the TE Router ID, Router ID or interface address of the remote ASBR) reached through this inter-AS link. Normally, the TE Router ID is recommended.” IETF 69#, CCAMP WG Chicago 07/24/2007

4. Next step  Solicit inputs from OSPF WG  This I-D is very small and now stable. IETF 69#, CCAMP WG Chicago 07/24/2007

5. Extensions to ISIS-TE for Inter-AS TE draft-chen-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-01.txt Mach Chen(mach@huawei.com) Renhai Zhang(zhangrenhai@huawei.com) IETF 69#, CCAMP WG Chicago 07/24/2007

6. Backgroud  Extensions to OSPF-TE is already a WG I-D.  Intra-AS TE links advertisement is OK. RFC3784 has defined how to advertise the intra-area TE links. RFC4205 and ISIS-TE-v3 define the similar extensions.  Inter-AS TE links advertisement is not defined yet (ISIS).  Extensions to ISIS-TE for inter-AS TE Optimization for selection of AS exit points, Identifying the AS and ASBR reached through each exit point.  Such inter-AS TE link information includes: List of all inter-AS TE links for the local AS TE properties of each inter-AS TE link AS number of the neighboring AS and identity of the neighboring ASBR connected to by each inter-AS TE link  Per-domain and BRPC both need such inter-AS TE link information IETF 69#, CCAMP WG Chicago 07/24/2007

7. Proposal  Extensions to ISIS-TE Two new sub-TLVs are added to the Extended IS Reachability TLV.  Remote AS number sub-TLV  Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV A new TLV is defined. ( the inter-AS reachability TLV )  Same semantic and formats as the Extended IP Reachability TLV  Using Up/down bit, facilitate distribution inter-AS reachability info between tow levels  Inter-AS reachability TLV with two sub-TLVs  Remote AS number sub-TLV  Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV IETF 69#, CCAMP WG Chicago 07/24/2007

8. Next step  Need more comments and feedback from WG  Solicit inputs from ISIS  Accept this draft as a WG I-D? IETF 69#, CCAMP WG Chicago 07/24/2007

9. Comments? Thanks! IETF 69#, CCAMP WG Chicago 07/25/2007

10. Why Per-Domain needs inter-AS links?  Two typical scenarios: AS2 loose AS3 loose ERO B1 loose C1 loose ERO Scenario 1: Locate Exit ASBR based on AS number of downstream AS EgressLSR IngressLSR A1 C3 C2 A2 AS 1 AS 2 AS 3 B2 A3B4 C1 B1B3 Path Message Scenario 2: Locate Exit ASBR based on entry ASBR of downstream AS IETF 69#, CCAMP WG Chicago 07/25/2007 PS:

11. Why BRPC needs inter-AS links?  Typical computation scenario for BRPC The traversed domains are assumed to be selected before path computation: AS1->AS2->AS3 EgressLSR IngressLSR A1 C3 C2 A2 AS 1 AS 2 AS 3 B2 A3B4 C1 B1B3 PCE1 PCE2 PCE3 PCE3 and PCE2 need to select entry boundary nodes based on their upstream AS number respectively. PCE2 and PCE1 need to select exit boundary nodes that provide connections to their downstream AS respectively. IETF 69#, CCAMP WG Chicago 07/25/2007 PS:

12. Not to do  Not trying to distribute TE information from one AS within another AS.  Not trying to distribute any form of TE reachability information for destinations outside the AS  Not proposing any change to the PCE architecture or usage.  Not suggesting any TE aggregation. IETF 69#, CCAMP WG Chicago 07/25/2007 PS: