Thanks Acee, That does the job. Adrian----- Original Message ----- From: "Acee Lindem" <acee@redback.com>
Cc: "CCAMP List" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; "OSPF List" <ospf@ietf.org> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 12:15 PMSubject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for Traffic Engineering Extensions toOSPFversion 3 - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-10.txt
Alan Davey pointed out that I was missing the word "is" in my text. I went ahead with a more verbose explanation of the protocol differences. *************** *** 342,348 **** The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub- TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID sub- TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be used in ! OSPFv3 due to the protocol differences between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined: --- 342,356 ---- The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub- TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID sub- TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be used in ! OSPFv3 since it is defined to use the OSPFv2 identification for the ! Designated Router (DR) on multi-access networks. In OSPFv2, ! neighbors on point-to-point networks and virtual links are identified ! by their Router IDs while neighbors on broadcast, Non-Broadcast ! Multi-Access (NBMA), and Point-to-Multipoint links are identified by ! their IPv4 interface addresses (Refer to section 8.2 in [OSPFV2]). ! The IPv4 interface address is not known to OSPFv3. In contrast to ! OSPFv2, OSPFv3 always identifies neighboring routers by their Router ! IDs (Refer to section 2.11 in [OSPFV3]). Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined: *************** On Apr 5, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:Adrian, How's this: *************** *** 342,348 **** The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub- TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID sub- TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be used in ! OSPFv3 due to the protocol differences between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined: --- 342,351 ---- The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub- TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID sub- TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be used in ! OSPFv3 since it defined to contain the IPv4 address of the Designated ! Router (DR) for multi-access interfaces. In contrast to OSPFv2, ! OSPFv3 always identifies a neighboring router by the Router ID (Refer ! to section 2.11 in [OSPFV3]). Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined: *************** I plan to wait until the WG last call has completed to submit the update. Thanks, Acee On Apr 5, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:Hi Adrian, Thanks for the review. On Apr 4, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:Hi, Just a couple of comments... === Section 1 s/proposes the addition of/defines/Changed.=== Section 4 Forgive me for not remembering this discussion... The draft says that we cannot use the Link ID sub-TLV "due to the protocol differences."The link-ID is cannot be used since, in the case of multi-access network, it contains the IPv4 address of the Designated Router (DR). OSPFv3 doesn't have this information.It then says that the Link ID sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be included (implying that it MAY be included under certain circumstances) but MUST be ignored.This is the spirit of being conservative in what one sends and liberal in what one excepts.1. Does ignored mean "continue to be flooded" or "stripped from the LSA"?In OSPF, only the originator should modify an LSA. So, it means neither.2. Is it not possible to consider operating a GMPLS control plane in an IPv6 network where the routers use IPv6 addresses to communicate (so all control plane messages will be addressed using IPv6, and the router address will be IPv6 as described in Section 3) but where the data channel identifiers are assigned from an IPv4 address space? Recall that in GMPLS the interfaces used for OSPF exchange are not those used for data exchange.I believe it is probable that IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist. However, OSPFv3 doesn't know the IPv4 address of the DR (at least it is not standardized). Hence, this isn't the right sub-TLV to reflect this topology.Whatever the answers, I think it would help if the reasons were clarified beyond "protocol differences."I'll expand this to describe the multi-access network case. Sound good? Thanks, Acee=== Cheers, Adrian PS I wouldn't mind if you spelled my name right in the acks section :-) _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf