Hi Shraddha,
From: OSPF <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of
Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:20 AM
To: OSPF WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [OSPF] Regarding draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00
Hi All,
draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00 proposes moving and/or copying TLVs
from the TE Opaque LSA to the Extended Link Opaque LSA. The draft lists the
problems that the draft is trying to solve. I have reproduced that list of
problems below, with each problem followed by what I believe to be a better and
simpler solution.
1. Whenever the link is advertised in a TE Opaque LSA, the link
becomes a part of the TE topology, which may not match IP routed
topology. By making the link part of the TE topology, remote
nodes may mistakenly believe that the link is available for MPLS
TE or GMPLS, when, in fact, MPLS is not enabled on the link.
To address this issue, we simply need to define a new sub-TLV in the TE Link
LSAto say whether MPLS/GMPLS/RSVP is enabled on the link instead of moving the
TLVs around into different LSAs.
2. The TE Opaque LSA carries link attributes that are not used or
required by MPLS TE or GMPLS. There is no mechanism in TE Opaque
LSA to indicate which of the link attributes should be passed to
MPLS TE application and which should be used by OSPFv2 and other
applications.
OSPF database is a container and OSPF can use any of the LSAS for its own use
including the TE LSAs. As far as the TE database goes, it contains data from
TE LSAs as well as non-TE LSAs (Network LSA) today so the reasoning described
here doesn’t make sense.
3. Link attributes used for non-TE purposes is partitioned across
multiple LSAs - the TE Opaque LSA and the Extended Link Opaque
LSA. This partitioning will require implementations to lookup
multiple LSAs to extract link attributes for a single link,
bringing needless complexity to the OSPFv2 implementations.
There will be nodes in the network which will run older software which send
these attributes via TE LSAs so the problem of looking into the TE LSAs for TE
relatedinformation doesn’t get solved with this draft. Rather it makes it more
complicated. With this draft, the multiple LSA lookup will only increase. An
implementation will first have to find if Extended link LSA contains the
required info, if not it will need to look up the info in TE.LSA.
The applications using the TE parameters for non-TE use-cases will use the OSPF
Prefix/Link attributes for these use cases. Hence, there is no requirement to
lookup the LSAs in multiple places. Backward compatibility will be covered in
the specifications of these applications.
Thanks,
Acee
Looking up multiple LSAs for information is an implementation issue and I am
sure there will be implementations that will handle this gracefully so that it
doesn’t cause
delays in critical paths. It doesn’t seem reasonable to come up with protocol
extensions to solve implementation issues.
Rgds
Shraddha
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
