Two questions on draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf draft

[Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>]

  Dimitri,
   I have a couple questions wrt the draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf draft.
  
In 5.2 a TE Link sub-TLV is introduced for the purpose of advertising local and remote TE Router ID:

 

  0                   1                   2                   3 

     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

    |              17               |             Length            | 

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  

    |                 Local TE Router Identifier                    | 

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

    |                Remote TE Router Identifier                    | 

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

 

Although I do understand why there is a need for advertising the Local TE Router ID, I don’t understand why the Remote Te Router ID? Isn’t this is the same information 
that is carried in the Link ID sub-TLV?

In 6. you write:

 

“A RA may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by links. 
The limit of the subdivision results in
 a RA that contains two sub-networks interconnected by a single link.”

 

In G.8080 I read:
  “.... A routing area is defined by a set of subnetworks, the SNPP links that interconnect them, and the SNPPs representing the ends of the SNPP links exiting that routing area. A routing area may contain smaller routing areas interconnected by SNPP links. The limit of subdivision results in a routing area that contains ]one subnetwork.”
   
  
Why is the discrepancy?

 

Thanks,

Igor

 
    
---------------------------------
         [
  
  
  
  
 
---------------------------------
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
 Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.