On Dec 13, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Peter Psenak wrote:
> Hannes,
>
> On 13.12.2012 15:21, Hannes Gredler wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:43 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>
>> [ … ]
>>
>>>> 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 used.
>>
>> other implementations may not be willing to accept T-LDP sessions on
>> non-loopback
>> adresses.
>
> how do you suggest to distinguish between /32 belonging to the loopback from
> /32 belonging to other interface types?
for OSPF traffic engineering deployments:
- if a /32 stub route advertisement of a type-1 LSA matches the TE router
address TLV in the type-10 LSA
for OSPF non-traffic engineering deployments:
- if a /32 stub route advertisement of a type-1 LSA matches the router-id in
the LS header
for IS-IS traffic-engineering deployments:
- if a /32 reported in any IP Reach TLVs (128,135, 235) matches the
TE-router ID TLV 134
for non IS-IS traffic-engineering deployments:
- if a /32 reported in any IP Reach TLVs (128,135, 235) matches the
- IP interface address TLV 132 (and this is the only IP interface address TLV
advertisement)
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
