Hi Ling,
On 1/7/16 03:52 , xuling (F) wrote:
Hi Acee,
I suggest to advertise SRLG only in the TE opaque LSA, and advertise TE
capability to help understand whether node is TE enabled. If node isn’t
TE enabled , SRLG shouldn’t be used for TE application; otherwise, SRLG
can be used for TE application or for other application purposes.
above would be incompatible with the existing implementations, as there
is no "TE capability" being used today.
regards,
Peter
the mechanism to advertise TE capability has been well defined in
draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis.
Best regards,
Ling
Hi Ling,
From: OSPF <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]>>> on
behalf of "xuling (F)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]>>>
Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 2:28 AM
To: OSPF WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[email protected]>>>
Subject: [OSPF] regarding draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00
Hi, all
To make the node that is not TE enabled advertises link attributes for
other applications, it is worth considering another choice which has
least change to the protocol and implementation. The method is:
advertising RI capability TLV in RI LSA when advertising TE LSA. TE
capability bit in RI capability TLV can indicate whether link attributes
should become part of TE topology.
In draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis,
?an OSPF router advertising an OSPF RI LSA MAY include the Router
Informational Capability TLV?? can be enhanced with: an OSPF router
advertising an OSPF RI LSA should include Router Informational
Capability TLV which can inform TE capability bit.
In this case, some improvement needs to be done in
draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis. These are my personal view.
The intent of RFC 4970 and the BIS version is that the drafts requiring
new capabilities will define them and request IANA allocation as opposed
to updating RFC 4970BIS for every new capability.
As for the mechanism, I think this would be rather unwieldy to attempt
to get SRLG information from different LSAs. Rather, within the OSPF
Routing Domain, I?d choose to advertise SRLGs either in the TE LSAs or
the Prefix/Link Attribute LSAs.
Thanks,
Acee
Best regards,
Ling XU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
xuling
华为技术有限公司Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Company_logo
Phone:
Fax:
Mobile:
Email:
地址：深圳市龙岗区坂田华为基地 邮编：518129
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Bantian, Longgang District,Shenzhen 518129, P.R.China
http://www.huawei.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
本邮件及其附件含有华为公司的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或
群组。禁
止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）
本邮件中
的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
HUAWEI, which
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above.
Any use of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to,
total or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the
intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender by
phone or email immediately and delete it!
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
