Re: Two questions on draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf draft
Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be Thu, 08 March 2007 21:30 UTC
Return-path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPQBx-0003xD-LK for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:30:29 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPQBM-0001PW-Gp for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:30:28 -0500
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1HPQ5I-000GLN-5I for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:23:36 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, MIME_BASE64_NO_NAME,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=3.1.7
Received: from [62.23.212.165] (helo=smail.alcatel.fr) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be>) id 1HPQ5D-000GKl-Mc for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:23:34 +0000
Received: from bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr (bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr [155.132.251.11]) by smail.alcatel.fr (8.13.4/8.13.4/ICT) with ESMTP id l28LNW0u021700; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:23:32 +0100
In-Reply-To: <632483.36530.qm@web36815.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
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
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5 September 26, 2003
Message-ID: <OFC54AAE42.350F555B-ONC1257298.00751CC2-C1257298.00757EB6@netfr.alcatel.fr>
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:23:21 +0100
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on BEMAIL05/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.13aHF163 | June 23, 2005) at 03/08/2007 22:23:24, Serialize complete at 03/08/2007 22:23:24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 155.132.180.81
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
igor pls use version <draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-02> (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 <i_bryskin@yahoo.com> 08/03/2007 22:11 To: Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com> 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.
- 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)