Hi Adrian, vishal and all, > 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.
Yes, agree. > > 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. > Yes, this will be added in the next revision. >> I also overheard Dave Ward comment that such information could also be >> useful in case of OAM too. > > Thanks, > Adrian > Best regards, Mach _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
