El 18/07/2014 7:39, Ramon Casellas escribió:
El 17/07/2014 18:42, Leeyoung escribió:
Hi Jeff,
I have a similar comment with Dhruv. I am wondering how BGP-LS
packages together TE information. Wouldn't it require IGP-TE to give
TE link-state information to BGP-LS speaker, then BGP-LS packages
them into a summary TE-info? If this is the case, I am not sure how
convergence time of BGP-LS can improve that of IGP-TE? Please correct
me if my understanding is not wrong.
Young, all
As much as I am ok with the approach of using PCEP, I am not sure what
you say is always the case. I would guess that the common,
straightforward source of link-state information for BGP-LS is the
IGP-TE, but it does not preclude other sources, including, as per
draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution direct, static and unknown.
That said, re-reading the draft again, the actual text still clearly
shows a heavy dependency on the IGP, e.g.
* $3.2.1.4 "IGP Router ID: opaque value. This is a mandatory TLV" lists
IS-IS and OSPFv2/v3
* $3.2.2, "Although the encodings for 'Link Descriptor' TLVs were
originally defined for IS-IS, the TLVs can carry data sourced either by
IS-IS or OSPF"
* $3.5 "The main source of TE information is the IGP,"
etc. etc.
Of course, e.g. assigning a router ID to a node does not mean that an
instance is actually running, so I guess BGP-LS could be decoupled from
the IGP instance (although using similar encodings and modulo some text
adjustments) thus mitigating convergence issues?
Thanks,
R.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
