[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Some comments on draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-00.txt
- To: "dimitri papadimitriou" <dpapadimitriou@psg.com>
- Subject: Some comments on draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-00.txt
- From: "Dean Cheng \(dcheng\)" <dcheng@cisco.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:07:09 -0700
- Authentication-results: sj-dkim-3.cisco.com; header.From=dcheng@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( 59 extraneous bytes; sig from cisco.com verified; );
- Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=12595; t=1153246030; x=1154110030; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dcheng@cisco.com; z=From:=22Dean=20Cheng=20\(dcheng\)=22=20<dcheng@cisco.com> |Subject:Some=20comments=20on=20draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-00.tx t; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3Dcai6wrVC2pg1fEo/asIk2w08toY=3D; b=rOqmc3A/fC5HPdhlM51ZZTA4wYhWNFXqzJhlA0OcDGAyw0tRozvoDCUakGVd7NXLemvFAjRY JsopXZIuUafGDMdFi6OvXklutaLHmc0kb1XdBDYu7MVsKXZIrsyKHkdy;
Dimitri,
I've some comments
now as follows:
1) The third
paragraph of section 6.1, it says, "....However, an
additional restriction MUST be applied such that the RC
selection process takes into account that an upper level may
be adjacent to one or more lower levels."
It would be good to clarify the words "one or more lower
levels"
here. From the sentence after that, it actually means one
or
more areas at the lower levels.
2) In section 6.1,
it says that the D bit is used together with the
"Associated Area ID" sub-tlv, as "an additional restriction".
In
the same section, it does not mention the use of that
sub-tlv
along with U bit.
But in
section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, it explicitly says that the
"Associated
Area
ID" sub-tlv is included when re-originating the opaque LSA
downward or upward.
It
would require clarification and consistency here.
3) In
section 6.1 (Discovery and Selection), it describes a
method
for "selecting" the RC that performs the upward/downward
dissemination
of routing information.
What happens if RC1
is currently the RC that doing the upward advertising
but RC2 just becomes active with U-bit set and a higher Router ID ?
I
guess the same handling as OSPF DR's election can be used
for
stability purpose, and also for consistency, and if so, needs to be stated
in this section. And for that matter, the word "selection" vs.
"election"
does not really make much difference.
4) In section 7.2,
it is also useful to add that the number of levels be under
policy
control.
5) It would be
useful to add an interoperability section, which describes
how
an traditional OSPF node/network interoperates (if need to) with an OSPF
node/network with extensions as described in this ID. E.g., a
reachable
address (prefix) is advertised by an ABR normally but with
this ID, can also
be advertised through hierarchy.
Thanks
Dean