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

[[e-mail]]

igor,

> Is the LinkID is the same as Remote TE Router ID? 

no

> LinkID unambiguosly identifies remote data plane node,

no, it identifies the remote RC not the remote data plane "node" in case 
the remote RC is associate to n "nodes"


ps: second question is trivial, mathematical vs networking formulation (no 
real difference)

pps: if you want to put guidelines on e-mail responses probably directing 
your e-mail to the GEN AREA would be more suitable 

hope this helps,
-d.




Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>
09/03/2007 00:03
 
        To:     Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
        cc:     [e-mail], "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" 
<[e-mail]>
        Subject:        Re: Two questions on 
draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf draft


Dimitri, no, it does not help.

You didn't answer the first question, which is:

Is the LinkID is the same as Remote TE Router ID? If no, what is the 
difference? If yes, why do you need the latter? Both your pointers explain 
why do you need advertising of the local TE Router ID (advertising router 
may cover multiple data plane nodes), However, LinkID unambiguosly 
identifies remote data plane node, and the need for the advertising of 
Remote TE Router ID is not obvious

BTW, You didn't answer the second question either.

Igor

PS, I have a suggestion for the working group: Let us disallow responding 
to the comments/questions by just pointing to RFCs or drafts. In my view 
it is quite unfriendly. It is always possible to cut and paste a piece 
from the relevant RFC or draft confirming the points the writer is trying 
to make.

[e-mail] wrote:
igor


pls use version (or 03 
when available to make comments)

in that version you will see in Section 5.2

" Note: The Link ID sub-TLV that identifies the other end of the link 
(i.e. Router ID of the neighbor for point-to-point links) MUST 
appear exactly once per Link TLV. This sub-TLV MUST be processed as 
defined in [RFC3630]. "

now why this sub-TLV 17, well for the reason explained at the beginning of 

par.5.2
but also in RFC 4652 Section 5.7

hope this helps,
-d.




Igor Bryskin 
08/03/2007 22:11

To: Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
cc: [e-mail], "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" 

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


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.


 Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels 
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.