Re: Two questions on draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf draft

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be]

igor


pls use version <draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-02> (or 03 
when available to make comments)

in that version you will see in Section 5.2

" Note: The Link ID sub-TLV that identifies the other end of the link 
   (i.e. Router ID of the neighbor for point-to-point links) MUST 
   appear exactly once per Link TLV. This sub-TLV MUST be processed as 
   defined in [RFC3630]. "

now why this sub-TLV 17, well for the reason explained at the beginning of 
par.5.2
but also in RFC 4652 Section 5.7

hope this helps,
-d.




Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
08/03/2007 22:11
 
        To:     Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
        cc:     ccamp@ops.ietf.org, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" 
<dbrungard@att.com>
        Subject:        Two questions on 
draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf draft


Dimitri,
 I have a couple questions wrt the 
draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf draft.
In 5.2 a TE Link sub-TLV is introduced for the purpose of advertising 
local and remote TE Router ID:
 
  0                   1                   2                   3 
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    |              17               |             Length            | 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    |                 Local TE Router Identifier                    | 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    |                Remote TE Router Identifier                    | 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
 
Although I do understand why there is a need for advertising the Local TE 
Router ID, I don’t understand why the Remote Te Router ID? Isn’t this is 
the same
 information 
that is carried in the Link ID sub-TLV?
In 6. you write:
 
“A RA may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by links. 
The limit of the subdivision results in
 a RA that contains two sub-networks interconnected by a single link.”
 
In G.8080 I read:
“.... A routing area is defined by a set of subnetworks, the SNPP links 
that interconnect them, and the SNPPs representing the ends of the SNPP 
links exiting that routing area. A routing area may contain smaller 
routing areas interconnected by SNPP links. The limit of subdivision 
results in a routing area that contains ]one subnetwork.”
 
Why is the discrepancy?
 
Thanks,
Igor
 

 [
 Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.