Hello all,
I support this draft as co-author.
There exist at least two different ways to implement OSPF routing
via MPLS TE tunnels signaled by different OSPF instance. These ways are
NOT fully interoperable. And when there is a question of
interoperability, IETF OSPF WG has a mandate for standard's actions.
So IMO the problem posed by this draft is a problem which needs OSPF
WG attention.
Solution proposed by this draft is not the most simple to implement
but authors believe it is the simplest to operate and provides
reliability guarantee lacked by other approaches. Potential troubles
with other ways to solve this problem are discussed in the draft's text.
In other words, authors of the draft valued simplicity of operation over
simplicity of implementation.
MPLS TE has somewhat fallen out of favor lately. But this work is
needed to complement existing OSPF MPLS TE RFCs and applied solution may
in future be extended to other types of tunnels.
---
Anton Smirnov
On Friday 06 January 2017 16:17, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
This starts a 2-week call for WG Adoption for the subject draft. The
adoption call will conclude on January 21st, 2017.
The draft has expired but will be refreshed shortly.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te-06.txt
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
