Re: LC comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt

[Zafar Ali <zali@cisco.com>]

At 01:39 AM 4/12/2002 -0700, Kireeti Kompella wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Zafar Ali wrote:
>
> > A way of exchanging the Link Identifiers for Unnumbered TE links
> (with
> > interface switching cap of PSC-1 to PSC-4) is missing from the
> draft. In
> > ISIS, the unnumbered TE link identifiers can be exchanged using
> Link
> > Identifies in the Extended Local Circuit ID field of the
> "Point-to-Point
> > Three-Way Adjacency" IS-IS Option type
> [draft-ietf-isis-3way-05.txt]. Can
> > you please define an equivalent mechanism for the OSPF in the
> draft?
>
> Excellent point.  We have a way of doing this (namely, a
> link-local
> opaque LSA, similar to grace-LSAs), but we weren't sure whether to
> put
> it in this draft or a companion draft.

Hi Kireeti, 

Thanks for your reply. The use of
Opaque LSAs with flooding scope of
“link-local” makes much sense
for exchanging the interface identifiers for the unnumbered interfaces.

As far as encoding details for this LSA is concerned, would you like to
get it reviewed as part of this review processes, or would you like to
get it reviewed as part of the review for the upcoming version of the
document. In either case, I think it will be quite useful if you can
email the expected format. 

Thanks

Regards…. Zafar 

> To keep the parallelism with the ISIS
> draft, we should probably just
> add this specification to this draft ...
>
> Kireeti.