[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Last call complete on Advertisement of inter-AS TE links
Hi Adrian and all,
Thanks for the review and comment.
I will update and resubmit the I-Ds ASAP.
On 2008-04-10, at 00:06:32 Adrian Farrel wrote:
>The last call completed. Given the high level of review and discussion in
>the past and the relatively small size of the I-Ds, I'm not surprised that
>we only got a couple of comments during last call.
>Mach, can you make the changes to the I-D to satisfy Acee's comments on the
>OSPF draft, and check to see if there is any similar language in the IS-IS
>draft? One point...
>Where he suggests alternative text for "TE Router ID", I think this is fine,
>but it would be helpful if you retained "TE Router ID" in brackets to give
>the extra information.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Acee Lindem" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: "Adrian Farrel" <email@example.com>
>Cc: "OSPF List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "CCAMP List" <email@example.com>
>Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 3:46 PM
>Subject: Re: [OSPF] CCAMP last call on advertisement of inter-AS TE links
>>I can't speak for the OSPF WG as a whole, but I have reviewed the subject
>>document and am very happy to see that the suggestion to use separate
>>inter-AS LSA types has been incorporated. I have no further technical
>>comments on the document and trust that the ccamp WG has verified that
>>this information encoding meets the TE requirements. The usage described
>>in sections 2.2 and 2.3 seem reasonable to me.
>> I have the following editorial comments:
>> 1. Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.2 - Both of these say "Use of the TE Router
>> ID is RECOMMENDED." I believe these should be respectively replaced by
>> "Use of the TE Router Address as specified in the Router Address TLV
>> [OSPF-TE] is RECOMMENDED." and "Use of the TE Router IPv6 Address as
>> specified in the IPv6 Router Address as specified in the IPv6 Router
>> Address TLV [OSPF-V3-TE] is RECOMMENDED."
>> 2. Section 3.2.1 states "This is because... that may operate in a
>> different address space;". If they are using a different address space on
>> the link between the ASes, then I'd expect there to be problems with BGP
>> as well :^) I'd suggest:
>> "Given that OSPF is an IGP and should only be utilized between
>> routers in the same routing domain, the OSPF specific Link ID and
>> Neighbor ID sub-TLVs are not applicable to inter-AS links.".
>> 3. You may want to expand some acronyms on their first use. For
>> example, "AS Boundary Router (ASBR)", "Link State Advertisement (LSA)"
>> "Path Computation Element (PCE)".
>> 4. [OSPFV3] is listed to as both a Normative and Informative reference.
>> On Mar 19, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>> You may recall providing useful review and feedback on
>>> The authors believe that they have taken on board all the comments
>>> from the OSPF working group and have updated the draft accordingly.
>>> CCAMP is holding a three week working group last call on this I-D along
>>> its IS-IS partner document:
>>> These documents describe how to advertise the TE links that connect an
>>> AS to
>>> the outside world within the AS's IGP. As the drafts are at pains to
>>> out, there is no proposal to advertise the TE information more widely
>>> as to other ASes).
>>> The last call will end at 12 noon BST on April 9th 2008.
>>> Please send your comments to the CCAMP list or direct to the CCAMP
>>> Adrian and Deborah
>>> OSPF mailing list