[OSPF] Re: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface IP address
Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Sun, 17 September 2006 09:49 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GOtGw-00069a-4e; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 05:49:10 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GOtGu-00066m-Qu; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 05:49:08 -0400
Received: from smail.alcatel.fr ([62.23.212.165]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GOtGt-0001A6-8d; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 05:49:08 -0400
Received: from bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr (bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr [155.132.251.11]) by smail.alcatel.fr (8.13.4/8.13.4/ICT) with ESMTP id k8H9n70s029810; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:49:07 +0200
In-Reply-To: <097c01c6da3c$1ab832d0$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5 September 26, 2003
Message-ID: <OFB9F9FEFE.6E30228F-ONC12571EC.00352ED8-C12571EC.0035ED04@netfr.alcatel.fr>
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:48:55 +0200
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on BEMAIL05/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.13aHF163 | June 23, 2005) at 09/17/2006 11:49:05, Serialize complete at 09/17/2006 11:49:05
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 155.132.180.81
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0770535483960d190d4a0d020e7060bd
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Re: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface IP address
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org
adrian point is that one can have two different readings of these sentences either one assigns multiple IP addresses and configures a specific map of these addresses to components (e.g. sub-interfaces) or it is meant just to assign multiple IP addresses to an interface independently of this segmentation however, there is no bundling concept in this ref. or equivalently the bundling RFC maps a single (composed) TE link to a TE link (with specific aggregation rules when it comes to TE attributes) that is RFC4201 uses a single value for the link local/remote address/interface associated to the bundle thanks, - d. "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> 17/09/2006 11:31 Please respond to "Adrian Farrel" To: "Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com>, Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL cc: <ospf@ietf.org>, <mpls@ietf.org>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface IP address Hi Vijay, OSPF-TE implementers may wish to disagree with me on this, but I think Dimitri's definitive statement does not cover the basic reasoning for this feature. While it is true that one can use multiple link addresses to identify multiple component links, I think that the multiplicity of link addresses is provided in this RFC so that a single TE link may support multiple interfaces. This is an implementation choice, and may be advantageous in some cases. If the multiple link addresses are used to identify multiple component links, then I would expect a 1:1 correspondence between the link ends. If the addresses are used to identify different interfaces to the same link then I would not necessarily expect a 1:1 correspondence. In answer to your most recent questions: > Section 2.4.2 of rfc3630 says: "The Link TLV describes a single link." And so it does. It describes a single TE link. A link bundle is still a single TE link, but it is made up of multiple component links that are not identified as TE links in their own right. > Section 2.5.3 of rfc3630 says: "The Local Interface IP Address sub-TLV > specifies the IP address(es) of the interface corresponding to this link." > > Section 2.5.4 of rfc3630 says: "The Remote Interface IP Address sub-TLV > specifies the IP address(es) of the neighbor's interface corresponding to > this link." As above > Doesn't this mean the Local and Remote Interface IP Address sub-TLV > corresponds to just ONE TE-Link? Yes, it does. > There is no mention of "components" anywhere in this document. Even in > rfc4201, it is not clear that when multiple (component) TE-Links are > aggregated as a single numbered bundled link, there can be more than one > Interface IP address used for Local and Remote Interface IP Address. > > Could you please provide a reference where this is clarified as the mean > for > advertising multiple components at once. I don't think you will find such a reference. What is clear is that an implementation MAY assign multiple interface IP addresses. Therefore, there is nothing to stop an implementation using the component link identifiers as the set of interface IP addresses. Since each component link is in just one bundle, the use of a component link identifier uniquely identifies the bundle. This mechanism of advertising is, therefore, a clever way of advertising bundle membership information to the neighbor. If you want a more definitive statement of how this can work, you should probably develop an Applicability Statement I-D. Regards, Adrian > Thanks and best regards, > > Vijay > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be > [mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be] > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:57 AM > To: Pandian, Vijay > Subject: Re: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface IP address > > > hi vijay - this was meant for advertizing multiple components at once > > > > > "Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com> > Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > 06/07/2006 02:56 > > To: ospf@ietf.org > cc: mpls@ietf.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface IP address > > > Section 2.5.3 indicates that there can be more than one Local Interface IP > address assigned to a (numbered) TE-Link. Similarly, section 2.5.4 > indicates that there can be more than one Remote Interface IP Address > assigned to a (numbered) TE-Link. > > Is there any requirement that the number of Local Interface IP address > assigned to a given TE-link match the number of Remote Interface IP > address. > > Specifically, can a TE-Link have just one Local Interface IP address but > multiple Remote Interface IP Address or vice-versa? > > Best regards, > > Vijay > > > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
- [OSPF] RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface IP ad… Pandian, Vijay
- [OSPF] RE: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface I… Pandian, Vijay
- [OSPF] Re: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface I… Adrian Farrel
- [OSPF] Re: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface I… Dimitri.Papadimitriou