From: "xuling (F)" <xuling3@huawei.com>
To: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: regarding draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00
Thread-Index: AQHRTdgtbktEg7NYs0mKXhSnIlJ1Yg==
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 07:58:24 +0000
Message-ID: <7C4B8F3BED3A204AB58199B2ABB235B829CD5609@szxeml523-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <mailman.53.1452542413.6090.ospf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.53.1452542413.6090.ospf@ietf.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/Hslv_6-y2JGJ2IzTF7U6tsD65jM>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] regarding draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00
Precedence: list

Hi Peter,

the mechanism in draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis maybe highly expect to be used =
once well defined. If it works, we don't need to define a new mechanism to =
solve the first issue, maybe for new mechanism incompatible problem would a=
lso occur.=20


Best regards,
Ling
  =20

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:33:12 +0100
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
To: "xuling (F)" <xuling3@huawei.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] regarding draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00
Message-ID: <56935AB8.5010202@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUTF-8; format=3Dflowed

Hi Ling,

On 1/7/16 03:52 , xuling (F) wrote:
> Hi Acee,
>
> I suggest to advertise SRLG only in the TE opaque LSA, and advertise=20
> TE capability to help understand whether node is TE enabled. If node=20
> isn?t TE enabled , SRLG shouldn?t be used for TE application;=20
> otherwise, SRLG can be used for TE application or for other application p=
urposes.

above would be incompatible with the existing implementations, as there is =
no "TE capability" being used today.

regards,
Peter

>
> the mechanism to advertise TE capability has been well defined in=20
> draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ling
>
> Hi Ling,
>
> From: OSPF <ospf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org
> <mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org%3cmailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org>>> on=20
> behalf of "xuling (F)" <xuling3@huawei.com<mailto:xuling3@huawei.com
> <mailto:xuling3@huawei.com%3cmailto:xuling3@huawei.com>>>
>
> Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 2:28 AM
>
> To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org
> <mailto:ospf@ietf.org%3cmailto:ospf@ietf.org>>>
>
> Subject: [OSPF] regarding draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00
>
> Hi, all
>
> To make the node that is not TE enabled advertises link attributes for=20
> other applications, it is worth considering another choice which has=20
> least change to the protocol and implementation. The method is:
> advertising RI capability TLV in RI LSA when advertising TE LSA. TE=20
> capability bit in RI capability TLV can indicate whether link=20
> attributes should become part of TE topology.
>
> In draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis,
>
> ?an OSPF router advertising an OSPF RI LSA MAY include the Router=20
> Informational Capability TLV?? can be enhanced with: an OSPF router=20
> advertising an OSPF RI LSA should include Router Informational=20
> Capability TLV which can inform TE capability bit.
>
> In this case, some improvement needs to be done in=20
> draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis. These are my personal view.
>
> The intent of RFC 4970 and the BIS version is that the drafts=20
> requiring new capabilities will define them and request IANA=20
> allocation as opposed to updating RFC 4970BIS for every new capability.
>
> As for the mechanism, I think this would be rather unwieldy to attempt=20
> to get SRLG information from different LSAs. Rather, within the OSPF=20
> Routing Domain, I?d choose to advertise SRLGs either in the TE LSAs or=20
> the Prefix/Link Attribute LSAs.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ling XU
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> xuling
> ????????Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
> Company_logo
>
> Phone:
> Fax:
> Mobile:
> Email:
> ??????????????? ???518129
> Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
> Bantian, Longgang District,Shenzhen 518129, P.R.China=20
> http://www.huawei.com
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> ????????????????????????????????????
> ????
> ????????????????????????????????????
> ????
> ???????????????????????????????????
> This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from=20
> HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address=20
> is listed above.
> Any use of the
> information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited=20
> to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by=20
> persons other than the intended
> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error,=20
> please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


------------------------------

End of OSPF Digest, Vol 119, Issue 5
************************************