Hi Vishal,
I have a doubt regarding the opposition I heard your opposition to the
introduction of a new Link type (Inter-AS link) field.
So, the reason why a separate link type was proposed was a suggestion to
help the other nodes (also legacy nodes) in the rest of the network. We
wanted to allow a distinction to be made between inter-AS TE links and
intra-AS TE links. (Note also that the intra-AS links may have normal IGP
advertisements, but the inter-AS links are only advertised as TE links.)
But, I think we are happy to be guided by the OSPF WG on this.
If the WG feels that we should use the same link type, that will be fine.
But if the WG feels we should use a separate link type or doesn't care, we
should use a different link type.
I know of CSPF implementations that do a two way check before we can
use a link for CSPF. In the Inter-AS case, there will not be such a
case. Will that not mean that even when a router is down and its LSA
exist, we will still use the links for SPF?
Something that has been missed, I think, and was raised by John Drake in the
meeting, is that we need to advertise both directions of the inter-AS TE
link. That actually means that the local ASBR is going to do a "proxy"
advertisement.
I also overheard Dave Ward comment that such information could also be
useful in case of OAM too.
Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
