Re: Polling for WG adoptionofdraft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt
Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com> Wed, 16 May 2007 09:14 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 1HoFaT-0006Pw-9F for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 05:14:25 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HoFaS-0003E8-S0 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 05:14:25 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1HoFTV-00005L-Rk for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 16 May 2007 09:07:13 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, MIME_BASE64_BLANKS,MIME_BASE64_NO_NAME,MIME_BASE64_TEXT autolearn=no version=3.1.7
Received: from [61.144.161.53] (helo=szxga01-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <mach@huawei.com>) id 1HoFTS-000051-3G for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 09:07:12 +0000
Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in [172.24.2.3]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JI4000OEMNPXU@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 17:07:01 +0800 (CST)
Received: from M55527 ([10.111.12.154]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0JI4004FKMNMIM@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 17:07:01 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 17:06:58 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: Polling for WG adoptionofdraft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt
To: LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN <jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com>
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Message-id: <009a01c79799$8f4bf9e0$9a0c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <00ce01c7914b$545dda00$650c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE079A7C24@ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr> <003401c79786$15894d00$9a0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE079A7E3F@ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr>
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf3becbbd6d1a45acbe2ffd4ab88bdc2
Hi JL, >But 3630 was defined for intra AS usage. >In an inter-AS context, it would be better not to restrict this field to the remote TE Router ID only. OK, we will consider it in the next revision. Best regards, Mach ----- Original Message ----- From: "LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" <jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com> To: "Mach Chen" <mach@huawei.com> Cc: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 4:14 PM Subject: RE: Polling for WG adoptionofdraft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt Hi Chen >so, for point-to-point inter-AS link, as defined in this I-D, it's >seems to be a better choice that the Link ID sub-TLV carries the TE >router ID of the remote ASBR . But 3630 was defined for intra AS usage. In an inter-AS context, it would be better not to restrict this field to the remote TE Router ID only. Mach: OK, Kind Regards, JL > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Mach Chen [mailto:mach@huawei.com] > Envoyé : mercredi 16 mai 2007 08:48 > À : LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN > Cc : zzx-adrian@olddog.co.uk; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Objet : Re: Polling for WG > adoptionofdraft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt > > Hi JL, > > first, thanks for you supports! > > please see inline > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" > <jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com> > To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:19 AM > Subject: RE: Polling for WG adoption > ofdraft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt > > > Hi Adrian, all > > This is a useful draft and I support it as WG doc. > > >>Mach: thanks > > I have one minor concern related to the link ID. > Using the remote TE router ID is a bit restrictive and may raise > security issues. > Actually it would work as well with a remote interface address, for > instance the address used to build the eBGP session, and this would > avoid communicating yet another address. > To summarize the link ID could be any address of the remote ASBR, > including but not limited to the TE router ID. > > >>Mach: > As defined in RFC3630: > "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. For > multi-access links, this is the interface address of the designated > router. The Link ID is identical to the contents of the Link ID > field in the Router LSA for these link types. " > > Yes, there are several candidates could be used to summarize > the Link ID, such as remote Router ID, remote interface > address and remote TE router ID( sometimes maybe the same as > Router ID), since remote interface address has already > carried in the Remote Interface Address Sub-TLV(defined in > RFC3630); so, for point-to-point inter-AS link, as defined in > this I-D, it's seems to be a better choice that the Link ID > sub-TLV carries the TE router ID of the remote ASBR . > > Also that would be great to have the same extension for IS-IS... > > >>Mach: yes, a separate I-D will be proposed soon. > > Regards, > > JL > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> > > To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> > > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:00 PM > > Subject: Polling for WG adoption of > > draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > In Prague we discussed this draft and the general opinion > > seemed to be that > > > this is a useful extension, but that some clarifications > > needed to be added > > > to the I-D. This new revision appears to address all of the > > concerns as > > > below. > > > > > > Therefore given the interest in Prague and the relevance of > > this I-D to our > > > inter-domain TE charter actions, we are polling the WG for > > adoption of this > > > I-D as a CCAMP draft. > > > > > > Opinions please. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Adrian and Deborah > > > > > > ==== > > > Overlap with L1VPN autodiscovery > > > > > > A question was raised as to whether there was an overlap > > > with the L1VPN autodiscovery work used to distribute > > > membership information (draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery) > > > > > > It appears that the mechanisms and purposes are different. > > > > > > The authors have added text to clarify that there is > no overlap. > > > > > > Language change for "OSPF" becomes "OSPF-TE" > > > > > > Concern was raised that the I-D talked about "OSPF" but the > > > function is "OSPF-TE". > > > > > > The authors have updated the I-D accordingly. > > > > > > Include reference to OSPFv3 as well > > > > > > A request was made to include OSPFv3. > > > > > > The authors have added text to explain that the same extensions > > > apply to OSPF v2 and OSPF v3 TE extensions. > > > > > > Make it *incredibly* clear that TE distribution between ASes is > > > not in scope. > > > > > > Although the I-D had plenty of this material, the authors have > > > beefed it up further by including the list of things > > that they are > > > not doing from their Prague slides. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- RE: Polling for WG adoption ofdraft-chen-ccamp-os… LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN
- Re: Polling for WG adoption ofdraft-chen-ccamp-os… Mach Chen
- RE: Polling for WG adoptionofdraft-chen-ccamp-osp… LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN
- Re: Polling for WG adoptionofdraft-chen-ccamp-osp… Mach Chen