Hi Acee,
my answers below (I didn't vet them with other authors, so they may
express different opinions).
> 1. Have you considered a shorter name for the RFC? For example: “OSPF
> Cross Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels”?
Your proposed variant drops two pieces: "Routing with" and "MPLS".
Dropping mention to MPLS is fine with me. Dropping "Routing with" seems
to me less correct because the draft is about ways to compute routes and
not about setting up/managing tunnels.
But ultimately I have no strong feelings here and if there is a
requirement to shorten document's name then that would be a good candidate.
> 2. Can you change the requirements language text to the RFC 8174
version?
OK, we will publish new document revision when we agreed on other
points.
> 3. In the section 3 mapping algorithm, why do you walk the X-AF
> endpoints from all connected areas? Why not just the area of local
> IP address?
Idea behind this wording is to cater for cases when area borders are
laid differently in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. It's even possible that router is
ABR in OSPFv2 but not OSPFv3. From network design perspective this, of
course, is a terrible thing to do - but not impossible.
> 4. In the backward compatibility section, can you also discuss the
> requirements for backward compatibility of the endpoints? Also state
> that the X-AF tunnel will not be recognized unless the endpoints are
> advertised by the same protocol (OSPFv2 or OSPFv3); or describe the
> behavior if this is not the intension.
We can add paragraph saying something like:
"In order for XAF computation to work tunnel tailend routers MUST
advertise XAF Node Local Address sub-TLVs in OSPF instance that will
perform XAF computation. Thus only tunnel endpoints (both tunnel headend
and tailend routers) and only OSPF protocol instance performing XAF
routing must implement XAF as described in this document. Other routers
in the network do not need to implement XAF algorithm or interpret Node
Local Address sub-TLVs. For example, if network uses TE tunnels signaled
by OSPFv2 [RFC3630] and intends to use cross-AF route computation in
OSPFv3 then only OSPFv3 implementation on routers that serve as tunnel
endpoints in OSPFv2 needs to be compliant with this specification."
Will this text work?
---
Anton
On 04/04/18 20:13, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Anton, Alvaro, and Mike,
In preparation for WG last call, I have a couple comments.
1. Have you considered a shorter name for the RFC? For example: “OSPF
Cross Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels”?
2. Can you change the requirements language text to the RFC 8174 version?
3. In the section 3 mapping algorithm, why do you walk the X-AF
endpoints from all connected areas? Why not just the area of local
IP address?
4. In the backward compatibility section, can you also discuss the
requirements for backward compatibility of the endpoints? Also state
that the X-AF tunnel will not be recognized unless the endpoints are
advertised by the same protocol (OSPFv2 or OSPFv3); or describe the
behavior if this is not the intension.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
