Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi Igor,

Igor Bryskin wrote:
> Hi Acee,
>
> I agree with your comment 100%. OSPF IGP developed and maintained in the
> OSPF WG  and
> ASON OSPF have just one thing in common - they share the same transport ,
> but, otherwise, have 0 in common. In particular, I believe ASON OSPF should
> not be considered as an extension to OSPF
> and should not be objected or supported by OSPF WG.
>   
I don't believe I said that (at least that's not what I meant). The OSPF 
ASON extensions
build on the existing OSPFv2 (RFC 2328), opaque LSA (RFC 2370), OSPF TE 
(RFC 3630),
and GMPLS (RFC 4203) specificatoins. What  I said was that  the ASON 
extension for
leaking routing information vertically within the RA hierarchy should 
not be construed to imply
a new OSPF area hierarchy. Rather, an RC supporting RAs at multiple 
levels should
view these as separate OSPF instances with leaking between levels 
described by
import/export rules.

Thanks,
Acee

> Igor
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Acee Lindem" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 5:40 PM
> Subject: Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution
>
>
>   
>> Hi Adrian, Dimitri, et al,
>>
>> No objection on my part. However, I wanted to make a clarification that
>> may or may not be obvious to everyone. In Montreal, Dimitri
>> and I sat down and discussed my comments on the hierarchical
>> dissemination of ASON routing information between RAs (Routing Areas
>> in ASON parlance).
>>
>> Today OSPF does not support an area hierarchy other than the
>> backbone and non-backbone areas. This specification for ASON  should
>> not be considered a partial specification of support in OSPF for a new
>> area hierarchy (specific requirements are stated in the CCAMP
>> document references). Rather, it should be conceptually viewed as rules
>> for importing and exporting GMPLS TE data between separate
>> OSPF instances  (one instance per ASON RA). This was the motivation
>> for my comment on restating the inter-RA advertisement rules in term of
>> import/export rather than flooding.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>> Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>     
>>> Just a refresh in case you were travelling.
>>>
>>> I am seeking objections to this draft becoming a WG document.
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
>>> To: <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:10 PM
>>> Subject: OSPF ASON Routing Solution
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Hi,
>>>> On Monday in CCAMP we discussed
>>>> draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-00.txt the solutions
>>>> draft for OSPF in ASON routing.
>>>>
>>>> There is agreement from the OSPF WG chair that we are not treading on
>>>> toes, and the meeting seemed to say that this was pretty stable.
>>>>
>>>> So a this is a quick poll to see if anyone objects to this becoming a
>>>> WG draft.
>>>> NB, this is a charter item and we have an obligation to work on this
>>>> for the ITU-T.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Adrian
>>>>
>>>> PS Note that a solution does not have to be 100% perfect to become a
>>>> WG draft.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>       
>
>