Hi Acee, For me current version doesn't change the solution. My comments are follow:
1. Introduction "TE Extensions to OSPFv2 [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 [RFC5329] have been described to support intra-area TE in IPv4 and IPv6 networks, respectively. In both cases, the TE database provides a tight coupling between the routed protocol and advertised TE signaling information. In other words, any use of the TE link state database is limited to IPv4 for OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and IPv6 for OSPFv3 [RFC5340]." What is meant for "routed protocol"? Is it passenger protocol of RSVP-TE LSPs, protocol used as a transport for RSVP signaling, protocol for which OSPFv2/OSPFv3 calculate routes? What does mean "TEDB is limited to IPv4/IPv6"? Is it limited to choose IPv4/IPv6 as a transport for RSVP-TE LSP signaling? "For example, an LSP created based on MPLS TE information propagated by an OSPFv2 instance can be used to transport both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic, as opposed to using both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 to provision a separate LSP for each address family." An LSP created based on TEDB from OSPFv2 can be used to transport IPv4 and IPv6 without extensions, proposed in the draft. We are not obligated to signal RSVP-TE LSPs from OSPFv2 TEDB for IPv4 traffic and other RSVP-TE LSPs from OSPFv3 TEDB for IPv6 traffic. RSVP-TE LSPs signaled based on TEDB from either - OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 - can be used for transport either - IPv4 or IPv6 - traffic. I.e. payload of RSVP-TE LSP and transport protocol for its signaling are not obligated to be the same. I guess that authors meant that an LSP, based on MPLS TE from OSPFv2, can be used for calculation of shortcuts by OSPFv2, and not by OSPFv3. Authors provide description of possible solution with common Router ID. I propose similar solution with advertising both Router IDs (OSPFv2 and OSPFv3) in both instances (OSPFv2 and OSPFv3). Latter overcomes issues with correctness of configuration and out of sync. Also, I don't understand how can possible solution with common Router ID have problem with different placement of ABRs in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. We are talking about intra-area LSPs, hence tail-end router should be within area in both instances. 3. Operation "A node that implements X-AF routing SHOULD advertise, in the corresponding Node Local Address sub-TLV, all X-AF IPv4 and IPv6 addresses local to the router that can be used by Constrained SPF (CSPF) to calculate MPLS TE LSPs." From section 1 we assume that X-AF is used for calculation of shortcuts. Why does the draft say here about calculation of TE LSPs by CSPF? "If the Node Attribute TLV carries both the Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV and the Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV, then the X-AF component MUST be considered for the consolidated calculation of MPLS TE LSPs." The same. Thanks. > 31 янв. 2019 г., в 2:03, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> написал(а): > > Hi Gunter, Alex, Ketan, > I hoping everyone who commenting on the previous version is happy with the > version. I’m extending the WG last call another week to see if we have any > objections to this version. > Thanks, > Acee > > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of > Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com <mailto:a...@cisco.com>> > Date: Monday, January 7, 2019 at 11:47 AM > To: "lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" <lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> > Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-xaf...@ietf.org > <mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-xaf...@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ospf-xaf...@ietf.org > <mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-xaf...@ietf.org>> > Subject: [Lsr] "OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering > Tunnels" - draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-05 > > This begins an LSR WG last call for the subject draft. Please send your > comments to this list prior to 12:00 AM GMT, January 22nd, 2019. > > Note that the second IPR poll was completed in December. > > Thanks, > Acee
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
