Agree with Les, why reinvent the wheel? Regards, Jeff
On Dec 13, 2012, at 20:36, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hannes - > >> >> should be go down and spin off dedicated drafts for OSPF and IS-IS to >> explicitly advertise the >> transport IP address ? > > Speaking specifically about IS-IS, why would we need to invent yet another > type of advertisement specifically for remote LFA? Here's a snippet from RFC > 5305 Section 4.3: > > <snip> > The router ID TLV contains the 4-octet router ID of the router > originating the LSP. This is useful in several regards: > > For traffic engineering, it guarantees that we have a single > stable address that can always be referenced in a path that will > be reachable from multiple hops away, regardless of the state of > the node's interfaces... > > If a router does not implement traffic engineering, it MAY add or > omit the Traffic Engineering router ID TLV. > <end snip> > > Does this not provide exactly what is required for remote LFA support? And > the RFC even specifically allows this to be present even if TE is not in use. > What would your suggested "advertise the transport IP address do" that is not > already done by TLV 134 (and the matching IP reachability advertisement)??? > > Les > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
