Hi Adrian, et al,
On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:31 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
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.
I wouldn't base this decision solely on my questions on what is and
isn't necessary for inter-AS TE. If you look at how OSPF interacts
with iBGP, we don't require the AS numbers to permeate into OSPF
(given that RFC 1745 is historic). However, I'd look to those
implementing this to verify that this makes sense for inter-AS TE.
Thanks,
Acee
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
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
