[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IGP Extensions - CCAMP Milestones
On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:50 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
If I understand the question it is...
In draft-ietf-ospf-cap-07.txt introduces the OSPF router
and states that this LSA may have type 9, 10 or 11 scope.
In draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt a new TLV (TE Node
Descriptor) is added to the OSPF router information LSA. This TLV
generated) MUST be advertised with type 10 scope. JL has given the
why this is limited to type 10. This reason is, of course, open for
discussion as he says.
In draft-vasseur-ccamp-automesh-02.txt a new TLV (TE-MESH-GROUP) is
to the OSPF router information LSA. It states that the LSA may be
advertised with type 10 or type 11 scope. JP has given a reason why
might want type 11 in addition to type 10. This reason is, of
An interesting feature is that a router advertising an AS-wide mesh
*and* a TE router capability may require that two OSPF router
LSAs are advertised by the router.
The language in draft-ietf-ospf-cap-07.txt leans towards a router
*an* OSPF router information LSA. But nowhere does it say that the
cannot send more than one and in section 2.5 we find...
The originating router MAY advertise
multiple RI LSAs as long as the flooding scopes differ.
You're 100% correct and this is exactly why we wrote that section in
Hope this answers the point.
----- Original Message -----
From: "LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN"
To: "JP Vasseur" <email@example.com>; "Dimitri Papadimitriou"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Dimitri Papadimitriou"
Cc: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 6:47 PM
Subject: RE: IGP Extensions - CCAMP Milestones
Thanks for the comment.
As just explained by JP, the TE Node Cap TLV carries topology related
parameters used as constraints in path computation. The leaking of
info across areas sounds useless as LSR TE visibility is limited to
But this is, of course, open to discussions. By the way, do you
application in mind where such leaking would be useful?
De : JP Vasseur [mailto:email@example.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 17 novembre 2005 16:58
À : Dimitri Papadimitriou; Dimitri Papadimitriou
Cc : firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; LE ROUX
Objet : Re: IGP Extensions - CCAMP Milestones
On Nov 16, 2005, at 6:30 PM, dimitri papadimitriou wrote:
could you explain the reasoning for having a TE specific TLV in the
auto-mesh document with area and AS-wide flooding scope
while the TE
router cap TLV is restricted to an area flooding scope ?
shouldn't be one way or the other i.e. either restrict all TE info
area-local or allow for TE router cap TLV with AS-wide
note: there is nothing in the TE router cap TLV that would impact
scaling more than the TE auto-mesh TLV does
I guess that the reason for allowing both intra and inter-area
flooding scopes for automesh is obvious (we need to have TE LSP mesh
within areas and spanning multiple areas).
So your question is probably why don't we allow the TE router
to be flooded across the domain ? As far as I can remember JL
answered this question ... JL, could you forward your email again ?
In the meantime, I can answer it: the reason is that such TE node
capabilities are used for TE LSP computation which cannot take into
account nodes that do not reside in the node's area.
Adrian Farrel wrote:
We have two immediate milestones to address:
Oct 05 First version WG I-D for Advertising TE Node Capabilities
Oct 05 First version WG I-D for Automatic discovery of
There are two personal submissions which address these topics:
I propose that we move these into the WG and then kick the tires