Adrian,
How's this:
***************
*** 342,348 ****
The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub-
TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID
sub-
TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be
used in
! OSPFv3 due to the protocol differences between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined:
--- 342,351 ----
The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub-
TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID
sub-
TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be
used in
! OSPFv3 since it defined to contain the IPv4 address of the
Designated
! Router (DR) for multi-access interfaces. In contrast to OSPFv2,
! OSPFv3 always identifies a neighboring router by the Router ID
(Refer
! to section 2.11 in [OSPFV3]).
Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined:
***************
I plan to wait until the WG last call has completed to submit the
update.
Thanks,
Acee
On Apr 5, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On Apr 4, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just a couple of comments...
>>
>> ===
>> Section 1
>> s/proposes the addition of/defines/
>
> Changed.
>
>
>> ===
>> Section 4
>> Forgive me for not remembering this discussion...
>> The draft says that we cannot use the Link ID sub-TLV "due to the
>> protocol
>> differences."
>
> The link-ID is cannot be used since, in the case of multi-access
> network, it contains the IPv4 address of the Designated Router (DR).
> OSPFv3 doesn't have this information.
>
>
>> It then says that the Link ID sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be included
>> (implying that
>> it MAY be included under certain circumstances) but MUST be ignored.
>
> This is the spirit of being conservative in what one sends and
> liberal in what one excepts.
>
>
>
>> 1. Does ignored mean "continue to be flooded" or "stripped from the
>> LSA"?
>
> In OSPF, only the originator should modify an LSA. So, it means
> neither.
>
>
>
>> 2. Is it not possible to consider operating a GMPLS control plane
>> in an IPv6
>> network where the routers use IPv6 addresses to communicate (so all
>> control
>> plane messages will be addressed using IPv6, and the router address
>> will be
>> IPv6 as described in Section 3) but where the data channel
>> identifiers are
>> assigned from an IPv4 address space? Recall that in GMPLS the
>> interfaces
>> used for OSPF exchange are not those used for data exchange.
>
> I believe it is probable that IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist. However,
> OSPFv3 doesn't know the IPv4 address of the DR (at least it is not
> standardized). Hence, this isn't the right sub-TLV to reflect this
> topology.
>
>
>
>>
>> Whatever the answers, I think it would help if the reasons were
>> clarified
>> beyond "protocol differences."
>
> I'll expand this to describe the multi-access network case. Sound
> good?
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
>> ===
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Adrian
>>
>> PS I wouldn't mind if you spelled my name right in the acks
>> section :-)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
