Re: Comments on draft-katz-yeung-traffic-08.txt

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Kireeti,

Can we close on the remaining issues?

   1. With respect to the Remote Interface IP Addres TLV, is
      there really any reason to include it with a value of 0.0.0.0
      for a multi-access link? I can't see how there could be
      a compatibility issue since the rough count on the list
      revealed more implementations that omitted the TLV
      altogether.

   2. With respect to more than two routers on a multi-access
      network, it seems there is considerable support for
      allowing this even though it is not fully specified.
      Could you add something along these lines to the second
      paragraph of the limitations section:

      "Operation over multiaccess links with more than two
       devices is not specifically prohibited. TE operation
       and the use of reservation state is a matter for
       further study".


Thanks,
Acee




Kireeti Kompella wrote:

> Hi Acee,
>
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Acee Lindem wrote:
>
>
>>Comments:
>>
>>     - The LSA Header Diagram in section 2.3.1 does not reflect
>>       the fact that the instance has been extended to 24 bits.
>>
>
> Thanks.  Someone else also pointed this out.
>
>
>>     - Section 2.4.1 - Replace "but for obvious reasons this..."
>>       with "but this nomenclature is avoid here since the
>>       OSPF router ID is not necessarily a routable address."
>>
>
> Any objections?  If not, I will make this change.
>
>
>>     - Section 2.5.4 - Why 0.0.0.0 for the remote address for
>>       multiaccess links? It seems the TLV should either be
>>       omitted or set to the single neighbor address (since
>>       section 1.2 limits traffic engineering to multiaccess
>>       networks with 2 devices).
>>
>
> While this document doesn't work ideally for multipoint links with
> more that 2 devices, it is used.  Also, this has been implemented
> and is running code, so changing the spec to omitting this TLV at
> this point would cause more problems than it would solve.
>
>
>>Suggestion:
>>
>>       - Include "Implications on Graceful Restart" section
>>         similar to draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-08.txt.
>>         Explicitly state that the goal is to maintain
>>         existing traffic engineered paths while discouraging
>>         any new ones until reservation state is obtained.
>>
>
> Instead, how about specifying explicitly in the ospf gmpls draft
> that the text there applies to the base TE doc as well as the GMPLS
> extensions?  Otherwise, draft-katz-yeung-traffic-08.txt will need
> the graceful restart doc as a normative reference.  Note that the
> TE doc has been around for many years, with interoperable
> implementations etc., while graceful restart for OSPF much more recent.
>
> BTW, can we start to progress the graceful restart (aka hitless
> restart) document?  There are interoperable implementations now, and
> while this doc is not as mature as TE, it certainly seems ready ....
>
> Kireeti.
>
>


--
Acee