[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPFversion 3 - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-10.txt
Thanks for the review.
On Apr 4, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Just a couple of comments...
s/proposes the addition of/defines/
Forgive me for not remembering this discussion...
The draft says that we cannot use the Link ID sub-TLV "due to the
The link-ID is cannot be used since, in the case of multi-access
network, it contains the IPv4 address of the Designated Router (DR).
OSPFv3 doesn't have this information.
It then says that the Link ID sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be included
it MAY be included under certain circumstances) but MUST be ignored.
This is the spirit of being conservative in what one sends and
liberal in what one excepts.
1. Does ignored mean "continue to be flooded" or "stripped from the
In OSPF, only the originator should modify an LSA. So, it means neither.
2. Is it not possible to consider operating a GMPLS control plane
in an IPv6
network where the routers use IPv6 addresses to communicate (so all
plane messages will be addressed using IPv6, and the router address
IPv6 as described in Section 3) but where the data channel
assigned from an IPv4 address space? Recall that in GMPLS the
used for OSPF exchange are not those used for data exchange.
I believe it is probable that IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist. However,
OSPFv3 doesn't know the IPv4 address of the DR (at least it is not
standardized). Hence, this isn't the right sub-TLV to reflect this
Whatever the answers, I think it would help if the reasons were
beyond "protocol differences."
I'll expand this to describe the multi-access network case. Sound good?
PS I wouldn't mind if you spelled my name right in the acks
OSPF mailing list