Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution

[Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>]

Hi Adrian, Dimitri, et al,

No objection on my part. However, I wanted to make a clarification that
may or may not be obvious to everyone. In Montreal, Dimitri
and I sat down and discussed my comments on the hierarchical
dissemination of ASON routing information between RAs (Routing Areas
in ASON parlance).

Today OSPF does not support an area hierarchy other than the
backbone and non-backbone areas. This specification for ASON  should
not be considered a partial specification of support in OSPF for a new
area hierarchy (specific requirements are stated in the CCAMP
document references). Rather, it should be conceptually viewed as rules
for importing and exporting GMPLS TE data between separate
OSPF instances  (one instance per ASON RA). This was the motivation
for my comment on restating the inter-RA advertisement rules in term of
import/export rather than flooding.

Thanks,
Acee 

Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Just a refresh in case you were travelling.
>
> I am seeking objections to this draft becoming a WG document.
>
> Adrian
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:10 PM
> Subject: OSPF ASON Routing Solution
>
>
> > Hi,
> > On Monday in CCAMP we discussed 
> > draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-00.txt the solutions 
> > draft for OSPF in ASON routing.
> >
> > There is agreement from the OSPF WG chair that we are not treading on 
> > toes, and the meeting seemed to say that this was pretty stable.
> >
> > So a this is a quick poll to see if anyone objects to this becoming a 
> > WG draft.
> > NB, this is a charter item and we have an obligation to work on this 
> > for the ITU-T.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian
> >
> > PS Note that a solution does not have to be 100% perfect to become a 
> > WG draft.