Re: draft-vasseur-mpls-ospf-pcsd-discovery-00.txt

["Manral, Vishwas" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Venkata,

>  May I know for what other purposes we used ASBR option ?

In ISIS the RFC3277 uses Overload bit to avoid Transient Blackhole
Avoidance, OSPF uses the LSInfinity cost mechanism in RFC3137 for stub
router advertisment, not something they may have originally been designed
for. We are not overloading the functionality of ASBR, which is where u
started off from and I find no reason for ur objection.

>  You didn't get my actual point. My point is,
>  don't mandate that "PCS server must be an ASBR".
Venkata, the point is very simple. By using the PCS as an ASBR we can easily
irrespective of inter-area/intra-area/other domain know of the existence of
the PCS.

Its about dynamically learning the existence of PCS by PCC and sending
request for path computation. By using the E bit in router LSA it is done in
a uniform way and reliably and that is what the point is.

Can you tell me what problems you see with this? I did not understand ur
proposal either.

> If an administrator would like to know the changes to PCS status then he
can
> always turn on ASBR option  on that router

If an administrator wants to know the status of the PCS, he can as well find
out the status on the PCS, why would he need to set the ASBR option for it
on the PCS. Or are you sugesting something else?

Thanks,
Vishwas