RTG AD hat on
Let me try to summarize this discussion.
Part of the discussion was on draft-katz-yeung vs
draft-srisuesh-ospf-te. Based on the following note from Suresh--
Make no mistake. The comments I sent to the IETF were solely
in response to the IETF last call on the katz-yeung
Suresh,
My recommendation against using this draft as the basis for
building further TE-extensions to inter-area and mixed networks
was in the context of OSPF Autonomous System (AS). I also
mentioned the draft has scalability limitations in extending this
to inter-area and mixed
Extensions to OSPF Version 2
to Proposed Standard
Suresh,
My recommendation against using this draft as the basis for
building further TE-extensions to inter-area and mixed networks
was in the context of OSPF Autonomous System (AS). I also
mentioned the draft has scalability
... snip
My recommendation against using this draft as the basis for
building further TE-extensions to inter-area and mixed networks
was in the context of OSPF Autonomous System (AS). I also
mentioned the draft has scalability limitations in extending this
to inter-area and mixed
Suresh,
As for the comment from John Moy (circa July 2001) about the
availability of an inter-area OSPF draft, I do recall responding
that the inter-area draft was assuming additive properties to
TE metrics to advertise summary info. It is a mistake to assume
that all TE metrics
... snip
Please look at draft-kompella-mpls-multiarea-te-03.txt, as
at least some of the approaches described in that draft
do *not* assume additive properties of TE metrics (and do not
advertise summary info).
Yakov.
Yakov - You are right. The draft does talk about
Suresh,
Please look at draft-kompella-mpls-multiarea-te-03.txt, as
at least some of the approaches described in that draft
do *not* assume additive properties of TE metrics (and do not
advertise summary info).
Yakov.
Yakov - You are right. The draft does talk about
Suresh,
You have brought up this issue on the ospf mailing list a couple
of times and as such the topic has been addressed on the list.
Here is pointer to an email from John Moy (circa July 2001)
http://discuss.microsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-MSD.EXE?A2=ind0107L=OSPFD=0I=-3P=15162
and another more
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:11:37 -0800 Pyda Srisuresh writes:
=Rohit,
=
=My comments were made solely in reference to the
=draft-katz-yeung draft; not in comparison to any specific draft,
=as you might believe.
[snip]
Suresh,
This is not the first time we are hearing from you on the topic. Your
actually, in the IETF, having running code for *one* solution is a good
way
to demonstrate how much of the problem is understood, and if some of
us had our way, it would be impossible to charter a Working Group
*without* the understanding of the problem space being *at least* that
good.
O'Dell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Last Call: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2
to Proposed Standard
actually, in the IETF, having running code for *one* solution is a good
way
to demonstrate how much of the problem is understood, and if some of
us had our way, it would
-Original Message-
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:37 PM
To: Pyda Srisuresh
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Last Call: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2
to Proposed Standard
On Wed, 18
... snip
As for the comment from John Moy (circa July 2001) about the
availability of an inter-area OSPF draft, I do recall responding
that the inter-area draft was assuming additive properties to
TE metrics to advertise summary info. It is a mistake to assume
that all TE metrics can be
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Kireeti Kompella
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:16 PM
To: Pyda Srisuresh
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Last Call: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2
];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Last Call: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2
to Proposed Standard
Suresh,
You have brought up this issue on the ospf mailing list a couple
of times and as such the topic has been addressed on the list.
Here is pointer to an email from
Call: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2
to Proposed Standard
Suresh,
You have brought up this issue on the ospf mailing list a couple
of times and as such the topic has been addressed on the list.
Here is pointer to an email from John Moy (circa July 2001)
http
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Last Call: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2
to Proposed Standard
The draft is a solution to providing TE within an OSPF area.
The draft has serious scalability limitations in
extending this to inter-area and mixed networks (with TE and
non-TE
17 matches
Mail list logo
