Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution
"Igor Bryskin" <ibryskin@movaz.com> Fri, 28 July 2006 14:44 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6TZj-0004Cn-9F for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:44:27 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6TZd-00078D-Vm for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:44:27 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1G6TSN-000Dtx-70 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:36:51 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.1
Received: from [70.158.43.219] (helo=jera.movaz.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <ibryskin@movaz.com>) id 1G6TSL-000DtZ-TP for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:36:50 +0000
Received: from ib (unknown [172.16.50.21]) by jera.movaz.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 69837D44; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:36:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <00f801c6b253$40a01320$6501a8c0@movaz.com>
From: Igor Bryskin <ibryskin@movaz.com>
To: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
References: <062701c6a5e6$e40805f0$e90ddb84@your029b8cecfe> <00c601c6ab40$7f534ca0$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> <021a01c6b0ba$df5e1b50$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe>
Subject: Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:36:38 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745
Dimitri, I have a couple of questions. My understanding is that your draft now allows for 1:N relationship between a routing controller (OSPF speaker) and data switch(es) managed by the routing controller. However, I am unclear on what to be done with the Router_Address TLV? What is the relationship between Router Address advertised in this TLV and local TE Router identifier(s) advertised,say, in type 17 Te Link Sub-TLV(s) introduced in 5.1 of the draft? When we considered only 1:1 relationship between routing controller and data switch, we always considered TE Router ID = Router Address. Is it still the case? If not, do you believe that Router_Address TLV is still necessary and for what purposes? Should it be modified to mandate advertising all TE Router IDs that appear as local TE Router IDs in locally generated TE Link TLVs? Or may be you believe that Router Address is simply a local routable IP address and does not have to match any of local TE Router IDs? Furthermore, do you consider N:1 (more than one routing controllers managing the same data switch, e.g. a controller per layer or region) or/and M:N ( one controller managing several data switches within one layer of multi-layer devices) relationships? Do you believe associating multiple controllers (i.e. advertising Router IDs) with the same TE Router ID causes no problem ? Thanks, Igor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:52 AM Subject: Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution > Having seem some discussion of the mechanisms and debate about the details, > but no objections, we will take this as a WG document. > > Dimitri, please re-submit as draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-00.txt > > Thanks, > Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> > To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:27 PM > Subject: Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution > > > > 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" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> > > To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> > > 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. > > >
- OSPF ASON Routing Solution Adrian Farrel
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Adrian Farrel
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Emmanuel.Desmet
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Richard Rabbat
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Igor Bryskin
- RE: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Ong, Lyndon
- RE: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Rajiv Papneja
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Gert Grammel
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Igor Bryskin
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Acee Lindem
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Igor Bryskin
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Igor Bryskin
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Igor Bryskin
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Acee Lindem
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Adrian Farrel
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Igor Bryskin
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Igor Bryskin
- Re: OSPF ASON Routing Solution Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- OSPF ASON Routing vs OSPF IP Routing Snigdho Bardalai