Aijun,
On 19/02/2019 03:01 , Aijun Wang wrote:
Hi, Peter and Dirk:
Thanks for your comments and the previous explanation.
For the use case related to the topology retrieval, I have the following
consideration, please point out if I have some misunderstandings for the
OSPF LSA procedure:
1) For prefix that is rooted at only one router, such as the loopback
address, only one originator for the prefix will be added by the ABR.
2) For prefix that is connected two nodes, such as the prefix that
identifies the link between them, the originator information will be added
twice for this prefix. Doing so does not the contradict with actual physical
deployment.
what you are proposing is to list all prefix originators, regardless of
which one is contributing to best path to the prefix on the ABR. I
personally do not like that idea.
The originator information will be added by the ABR when it receives the
Router LSA, as described in section 5 of the draft.
When the ABR receives such information, it may not begin the SPF calculation
and can't decide which side is closer to the ABR.
ABR MUST run SPF and determine whether the prefix is reachable and what
is the best path metric to reach it in the original area. Such
information is used when generating Type-3 LSA to other connected areas.
thanks,
Peter
Best Regards.
Aijun Wang
Network R&D and Operation Support Department
China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China.
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]]
发送时间: 2019年2月18日 22:02
收件人: Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp); Acee Lindem (acee);
[email protected]
主题: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix
Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01
On 18/02/2019 14:37 , Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
I agree with Peter.
For this to work, the ABR would need to add ALL originators, while I
had the impression that we only had 1 originator per prefix, i.e. the
originator which was found to be the closed to the ABR and for which
the ABR installed a route.
above is exactly right.
thanks,
Peter
Dirk
On 2/18/2019 14:15, Peter Psenak wrote:
Support as coauthor, although I never really agreed with the usage of
the prefix originator for topology construction as described in
section 3 and 5. I would prefer that part to be removed.
thanks,
Peter
On 13/02/2019 14:25 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
This begins a two week adoption poll for the subject draft. Please
send your comments to this list before 12:00 AM UTC on Thursday,
February 28^th , 2019.
All authors have responded to the IPR poll and there is one
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-wang
-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-wang-
lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext
It is listed multiple times but references the same CN201810650141.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
