> On Jan 12, 2022, at 9:03 PM, Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> wrote: > > > Chris, > >> This isn't the same as TE information which can be/is based dynamic values >> on the router. > > > Are you sure? First, much of the TE information that we have distributed is > static (administrative group, SRLG, etc.). The dynamic part has been > bandwidth reservation. That still seems applicable to inter-AS stub links, > even tho Aijin hasn’t articulated that yet. It does seem inevitable, again > assuming I understand the use case. > > >> I'm pretty sure that it isn't even using the 2-way connectivity check. It's >> literally just saying "Router A has a stub link B (i.e., it has the config >> 'isis passive' on it)". > > > As the draft has it, you’re correct. However, there’s all that undefined > subTLV space just begging for TE information. The current ‘link type’ > information seems somewhat pointless if it isn’t intended to be a item for TE > consideration. > > >> That infomration is already a part of an operators NMS b/c that NMS is what >> generated that router's configuration and stuck it on that router in the >> first place. That same NMS is going to be configuring the other router that >> would be looking for that "stub link" information in the IGP. Unless I've >> mis-understood something here, the proposoal is literally just pushing >> static configuration details around inside the IGP. > > > Agreed 100%. But it’s also what we do today with much of the static TE > information. Again, there’s precedent.
The thing about the TE information is that it's being used to make live routing decisions (i.e., in a CSPF). We have pretty consistently denied requests to ship generic router configuration around using the IGPs. Consider the case of configuring an inter-AS bgp connection, for that I'm imagining configuring a "BGP peer" service in my NMS. Part of that service is going to specify the neighbor AS and perhaps the router (or routers) to connect over. The NMS is going to look inside it's router information DB and use that information to construct the configurations for the service. If I tell it to deploy that service, it's going to then push those generated configuration files out to the affected routers, etc. I'm not seeing any need yet for this information to be shipped around in the IGP. Thanks, Chris. > > T > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
