On 1/2/14 1:51 PM, "Acee Lindem" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Alvaro, > >On Jan 2, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > >> On 12/28/13 6:42 PM, "Acee Lindem" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Acee: >> >> >>. . . >> >> But I do want to clarify one point that you mention several times: >> connectivity inside the TTZ. You mention it when talking about policy >>and >> management. >> >> There is no topology information advertised outside the TTZ, but >> reachability *is* advertised. Specifically Section 6 says: >> >> In addition, the LSA may contain a third group of links, which are >> stub links for other destinations inside the TTZ. They may be the >> loopback addresses to be accessed by a node outside of the TTZ. > >If you don't have any policy, how do you know WHICH stub networks to >advertise outside the TTZ? Just like an area border: everything. To your point before about connectivity inside, why wouldn't you advertise everything? > >> >> I know you made a point about scalability advertising the reachability >> this way. My point here is just to clarify that (1) there is no >> additional policy needed because the reachability is in fact advertised >> (unless you have a use case not to), and (2) there is no change to >> management because all the internal nodes should be reachable (besides >> being aware of the TTZ, of course). > >So, I guess you are statically configuring the routers hidden by the TTZ >in order to manage them? I don't see this as advancing the art. I don't understand what you mean by 'statically configuring'. The internal nodes are routers just like any other..yes, they would know (as written in the draft) that they are internal to the TTZ..just like a router knows that it is internal to an area. Alvaro. _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
