Re: P2MP on OSPF-TE

Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM> Fri, 27 June 2003 13:11 UTC

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <200306271046.h5RAkXSW037626@chisato.nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3EFC427E.6060301@redback.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:11:26 -0400
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM>
Subject: Re: P2MP on OSPF-TE
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

KASHIMA Hiroaki wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have an question for draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic.
>
> How can I describe Link ID sub-TLV for P2MP interfaces?
> The draft says in Section 2.5.2
>
>   "The Link ID is identical to the contents of the
>    Link ID field in the Router LSA for these link types",


Hello Kashima-san,

The Link Type sub-TLV doesn't only allows link types of point-to-point
and multi-access. Hence, I believe you should model your P2MP interface
as multiple P2P links.

I'd be interested in other opinions as well.

>
> and RFC 2328 says in Section 12.4.1.2
>
>   "o A single Type 3 link ..."
>   "o For each fully adjacent neighbor..., add an additional Type 1 link..."
>
> but the draft also says in Section 2.4.2
>
>   "The Link Type and Link ID sub-TLVs are mandatory, i.e., must appear
>    exactly one."
>
> So I cannot write it as same as Link ID in the Router LSA.
> --
> KASHIMA, Hiroaki <kashima@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp>
> Software Development Department-II,
> IP system Division, Fujitsu Ltd
>


--
Acee

P2MP on OSPF-TE KASHIMA Hiroaki
Re: P2MP on OSPF-TE Acee Lindem