On 3/1/18, 11:49 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Acee,
On 01/03/18 17:36 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Dirk,
>
> My memory has faded somewhat on Forwarding Adjacency (FA)
> implementation. However, since basic MPLS LSPs are unidirectional,
> doesn’t the SPF two-way check have to be disabled anyway? If so, the
> Remote Interface ID doesn’t matter.
no, you have to advertise FA from both sides so that TWC passes.
Ok - then we need something and if we have parallel FAs with the same endpoint,
then we should have something unique (since the problem with parallel P2P links
is solved in OSPFv3 we should solve the same problem with FAs). It would be
good to use something associated with the LSP rather than the outgoing
interface (which could change). Perhaps a short draft is in order...
Thanks,
Acee
thanks,
Peter
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> *From: *Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of "Goethals, Dirk (Nokia -
> BE/Antwerp)" <[email protected]>
> *Date: *Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 11:06 AM
> *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> *Subject: *[Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP
>
> Hi,
> In OSPFv2 (and ISIS), we can add (RSVP) tunnels to the topology
> by adding them as a unnumbered link in the router lsa.
> In OSPFv3, we can only add a link to the router-lsa if the neighbor
> interface ID is known.
> So it looks like we can only add a tunnel to the OSPFv3 topology,
> if we first exchanging hello packets over the tunnel.
> Is that correct?
> As this is not needed in the other IGPs, do
> we have other possibilities?
> Thx,
> Dirk
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
