Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution

["Igor Bryskin" <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>