Julien,
On 11/5/15 09:20 , Julien Meuric wrote:
Hi again,
One more point below:
Oct. 22, 2015 - Peter Psenak:
The TE Opaque LSA would be, presumably, required if SPRING is supported
which has no implications on whether RSVP-TE is enabled.
SPRING does not use TE Opaque LSA.
[JM] Just a quote from draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing:
"The list of segments can be specified explicitly or implicitly via a
set of abstract constraints (latency, affinity, SRLG, ...). In the
latter case, a constraint-based path computation is used to determine
the list of segments associated with the tunnel. The computation can be
local or delegated to a PCE server."
Though, in the Routing area, "constraint-based path computation" and
"affinity, SRLG" usually rely on TE/GMPLS opaque LSAs, you may advocate
this is only implicit...
that is fine. If you want to do traffic engineering, you should use TE
Opaque LSAs.
We are talking about link attributes that are NOT used for TE at all.
For example SRLG to be used for LFA. In that case you do NOT want to do
any TE.
Peter
However, when it comes to PCE, the references
to RFC 3630 and 4203 extensions are explicit.
Regards,
Julien
.
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
