RE: Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf
"Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com> Fri, 09 March 2007 18:35 UTC
Return-path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPjwR-0004NW-Qn for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:35:47 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPjwQ-0001AV-9Q for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:35:47 -0500
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1HPjpm-000I9l-JU for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:28:54 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.1.7
Received: from [63.118.34.24] (helo=ripley.ciena.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Lyong@Ciena.com>) id 1HPjpf-000I6N-4I; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:28:52 +0000
Received: from lin1-118-39-27.ciena.com (HELO mdmxm02.ciena.com) ([63.118.39.27]) by ripley.ciena.com with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2007 13:28:41 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:22:23 -0500
Message-ID: <0901D1988E815341A0103206A834DA07015455AE@mdmxm02.ciena.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF0C52175B.67E7473E-ONC1257299.00567647-C1257299.00579190@netfr.alcatel.fr>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf
thread-index: AcdiZJayIrbSAqAIRcuA2I0DinCWSgAEzKwg
References: <20070309150502.93330.qmail@web36806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <OF0C52175B.67E7473E-ONC1257299.00567647-C1257299.00579190@netfr.alcatel.fr>
From: "Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>
To: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be, Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 453b1bfcf0292bffe4cab90ba115f503
Hi Dimitri, That was my understanding also, I don't see any issue with this. Cheers, Lyndon -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 7:56 AM To: Igor Bryskin Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf igor the drafts says "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]. " which is exactly what you are saying - when i say "it identifies the remote RC not the remote data plane "node" in case the remote RC is associate to n nodes" read "it is set to the router_id that identifies the remote RC..." in brief, we keep the semantic and add a discriminator (that does not apply in case of colocated 1:1 LSR) - this closes the first point - concerning the second point, since there is a possibility to have multiple <Router_ID, TE Router_ID> associations in different LSAs i don't where the problem is ? thanks, -d. Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com> Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 09/03/2007 16:05 To: Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com> Subject: Re: Two questions on draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf draft Dimitri, > 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" IB>> No, I disagree. You see that's why it's so important to quote the RFCs/drafts, because people often interpret them differently. In RFC 3630 we read: " 2.5.2. Link ID The Link ID sub-TLV identifies the other end of the link. For point-to-point links, this is the Router ID of the neighbor. " Note that it does not say whether this is the advertising Router ID (identifying neighbor RC) or TE Router ID (identifying the neighbor TE node). However, it does say that it "identifies the other end of the link". Because a link is terminated by TE nodes (and not advertising routers) I conclude that LinkID identifies the remote TE node. Furthermore, earlier in RFC 3630 we read: " 2.4.1. Router Address TLV The Router Address TLV specifies a stable IP address of the advertising router that is always reachable if there is any connectivity to it; this is typically implemented as a "loopback address". The key attribute is that the address does not become unusable if an interface is down. In other protocols, this is known as the "router ID" I interpret that this is the same router ID as in the upper quote. It is advertised in the Router Address TLV, which is the only way today to advertise TE Router ID. Hence the router ID in the context of this RFC is the TE Router ID. The conclusion #1: the TE Link TLV, as it is today, always contains the ID of the remote TE node. The conclusion #2: there is a need to advertise several TE Router IDs supported by the same RC (advertising router), which, I think, should be proposed in your draft ps: second question is trivial, mathematical vs networking formulation (no real difference) IB>> Well, it changes one of the fundamental definitions of G.8080, and I am asking why is that in the draft which is supposed to define ways to support G.8080 Igor 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 09/03/2007 00:03 To: Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" 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. Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be 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: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, "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 donââ'¬â"¢t understand why the Remote Te Router ID? Isnââ'¬â"¢t this is the same information that is carried in the Link ID sub-TLV? In 6. you write: ââ'¬Å"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.ââ'¬Â In G.8080 I read: ââ'¬Å".... 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.ââ'¬Â 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. Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
- Next steps for draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shu… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: Next steps for draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Two questions on draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-r… Igor Bryskin
- Re: Two questions on draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-as… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Two questions on draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-as… Igor Bryskin
- Re: Two questions on draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-as… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Two questions on draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-as… Igor Bryskin
- Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-rout… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS
- RE: Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-… Igor Bryskin
- RE: Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-… Ong, Lyndon
- RE: Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-… Igor Bryskin
- RE: Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-… Igor Bryskin
- RE: Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-… Igor Bryskin
- RE: Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Two questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-… Igor Bryskin
- RE: Next steps for draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful… Zafar Ali (zali)