On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > On 12/12/2012 16:34, Peter Psenak wrote: >> Hannes, >> >> On 12.12.2012 17:05, Hannes Gredler wrote: >> >>> in favor of explicit advertisement, i'd rather do 3 rules here : >>> >>> 1. PQ node OSPF router-id, if it is advertised as /32 prefix by the PQ node >>> itself >>> 2. PQ node TE adress, if it is advertised as /32 prefix by the PQ node >>> itself >>> 3. Highest /32 address advertised by PQ node in it's Router LSA >> >> ether (1) or (3) is mandatory for the t-LDP session creation. (2) is >> optional and not sufficient for t-LDP session, so we can not have it before >> (3). >> >> It looks to me we are trying to solve the configuration problem which should >> not be addressed here. > > I am inclined to agree, and note that the draft is tunnel independent. > > We may want a deployment guidelines document, or some protocol specific text > in another document, but this draft can stand alone without this text.
stewart, do you think that the automated bringup of T-LDP sessions is generic enough to warrant for a new draft ? IMO this problem is specific to R-LFA deployment in LDP networks and hence should be added to the remote-lfa draft. /hannes _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
