Re: Re: [OSPF] CCAMP last call on advertisement of inter-AS TE links
Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com> Mon, 07 April 2008 02:19 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6952E3A6B66 for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 19:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tHvNM0JosDTs for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 19:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 661143A6C30 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 19:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1JigpC-0007Rl-VY for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:11:10 +0000
Received: from [61.144.161.7] (helo=szxga04-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <mach@huawei.com>) id 1Jigp8-0007RF-TD for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:11:09 +0000
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JYX006LCNEGFG@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:11:04 +0800 (CST)
Received: from M55527 ([10.111.12.186]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JYX00ESGNECP8@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:11:04 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:11:00 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [OSPF] CCAMP last call on advertisement of inter-AS TE links
To: Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, CCAMP List <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Message-id: <200804071010599657422@huawei.com>
Organization: Huawei
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Foxmail 6, 10, 201, 20 [cn]
Content-type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <079701c889ec$22702080$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <C71840B5-D198-4EA8-B132-0EFD68F54FD8@redback.com>
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Hi Acee, Thanks for your review and comments! Since there are no technical issues, I will update the I-D until the end of the WG last call. On 2008-04-04, at 22:49:13 Acee Lindem wrote: >I can't speak for the OSPF WG as a whole, but I have reviewed the >subject document and am very happy to see that the suggestion to use >separate inter-AS LSA types has been incorporated. I have no further >technical comments on the document and trust that the ccamp WG has >verified that this information encoding meets the TE requirements. >The usage described in sections 2.2 and 2.3 seem reasonable to me. > >I have the following editorial comments: > > 1. Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.2 - Both of these say "Use of the TE >Router ID is RECOMMENDED." I believe these should be respectively >replaced by "Use of the TE Router Address as specified in the Router >Address TLV [OSPF-TE] is RECOMMENDED." and "Use of the TE Router IPv6 >Address as specified in the IPv6 Router Address as specified in the >IPv6 Router Address TLV [OSPF-V3-TE] is RECOMMENDED." > 2. Section 3.2.1 states "This is because... that may operate in a >different address space;". If they are using a different address >space on the link between the ASes, then I'd expect there to be >problems with BGP as well :^) I'd suggest: > "Given that OSPF is an IGP and should only be utilized between >routers in the same routing domain, the OSPF specific Link ID and >Neighbor ID sub-TLVs are not applicable to inter-AS links.". > 3. You may want to expand some acronyms on their first use. For >example, "AS Boundary Router (ASBR)", "Link State Advertisement >(LSA)" and > "Path Computation Element (PCE)". > 4. [OSPFV3] is listed to as both a Normative and Informative >reference. > >Thanks, >Acee > >On Mar 19, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> You may recall providing useful review and feedback on >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas- >> te-extension-02.txt >> >> The authors believe that they have taken on board all the comments >> received >> from the OSPF working group and have updated the draft accordingly. >> >> >> CCAMP is holding a three week working group last call on this I-D >> along with >> its IS-IS partner document: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas- >> te-extension-00.txt >> >> These documents describe how to advertise the TE links that connect >> an AS to >> the outside world within the AS's IGP. As the drafts are at pains >> to point >> out, there is no proposal to advertise the TE information more >> widely (such >> as to other ASes). >> >> The last call will end at 12 noon BST on April 9th 2008. >> >> Please send your comments to the CCAMP list or direct to the CCAMP >> chairs. >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian and Deborah >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > Best regards, Mach Chen