Suresh, > > > As for the comment from John Moy (circa July 2001) about the > > > availability of an inter-area OSPF draft, I do recall responding > > > that the inter-area draft was assuming additive properties to > > > TE metrics to advertise summary info. It is a mistake to assume > > > that all TE metrics can be additive. Below is a pointer to > > > the response I sent. > > > > > > http://discuss.microsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-MSD.EXE?A2=ind0108&L=ospf&; > > >T=0&F=&S=&P=5937 > > > > Please look at draft-kompella-mpls-multiarea-te-03.txt, as > > at least some of the approaches described in that draft > > do *not* assume additive properties of TE metrics (and do not > > advertise summary info). > > > > Yakov. > > Yakov - You are right. The draft does talk about different > mechanisms the MPLS signaling protocols could use to setup > LSPs in an AS spanning multiple areas. However, the draft is > not about inter-area OSPF TE. The draft is about multi-area TE, as it describes how to solve the problem of supporting TE in a multi-area environment. > Clearly, there is interplay between signalling protocols and > the extent of TE link state data base (TE-LSDB) a node has. > I believe, scenario-3 is where the inter-area OSPF-TE is in > place and all nodes in an area have the same information as > their ABRs do. This scenario presents the signalling protocols > with fast convergence in settign up an LSP, right. Just to point out that quite a few scenarios described in draft-kompella-mpls-multiarea-te-03.txt are supported with the TE extensions that are subject to this Last Call. To repeat what Kireeti said already "There is work going on to address multi-area TE *that builds on this draft*." Yakov.