On 12/12/2012 15:27, Peter Psenak wrote:
Hi Hannes,
please see inline:
On 12.12.2012 15:49, Hannes Gredler wrote:
for the OSPF routing protocol:
A PLR router should connect to the address
traffic-engineering deployments:
why do we need to distinguish between TE and non-TE deployments?
All we need in rLFA context is a reachable IPv4 address advertised by
PQ node. That should be independent of TE being deployed or not.
Surely "reachable IP address", not "reachable IPv4 address".
- reported in the Router Address TLV (Type 10 LSA) and
- router (Type 1 LSA) ) stub network advertisement and
- the address mask is 255.255.255.255
or
non-traffic-engineering deployments:
- reported in the router-id field of the Type-1 LSA)
- the router (Type 1 LSA) stub network advertisement and
- the address mask is 255.255.255.255
can we say that the PQ node address used for targeted LDP session is
selected in following order of preference:
1. PQ node OSPF router-id, if it is advertised as /32 prefix by the PQ
node itself
2. Highest /32 address advertised by PQ node in it's Router LSA
Why do we need (2). What do we do if an interface cycles?
Surely the most we should say is that we SHOULD establish a TLDP session
with the
OSPF router-id, if it is advertised as /32 prefix by the PQ node itself,
else any
other IP address for the node may be sued.
Stewart
thanks,
Peter
</added-text>
tx,
/hannes
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
.
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
