Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions

Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM> Fri, 09 July 2004 15:42 UTC

Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06217 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:42:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com (209.119.0.2) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <8.00E0D453@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:42:32 -0400
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 25218032 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:42:31 -0400
Received: from 155.53.12.9 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:42:31 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0E62FC89C for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 08:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21860-03 for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 08:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aceeinspiron (unknown [172.31.253.53]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 856412FC896 for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 08:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
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 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com
Message-ID: <0a3f01c465cb$4dbdb020$0202a8c0@aceeinspiron>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:42:11 -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: Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Are there any concerns with this document
<draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-00.txt>? As I recall there
was general agreement at the Minneapolis IETF. The only
comment on the list was that it was unnecessary due to the
fact that the loopbacks were carried in the router LSAs. However,
I believe the general concensus was that putting in the TE
LSA was a cleaner solution than populating TE database
with router LSAs. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If there is no additional discussion, I'd like ask the authors to
re-issue it with the new draft guidelines and last call it.

Note that the OSPFv3 TE draft now references depends on
the new TLV documented in this draft.

Thanks,
------
Acee