On 13/12/2012 20:35, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 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
.
OK, so let's work up some text based on that and I will create a new
Section IGP Address considerations with an ISIS and an OSPF section.
I plan to get a new version out next week.
Stewart
--
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
