Re: [OSPF] Regarding draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00

Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com> Thu, 05 November 2015 08:21 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.meuric@orange.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E5C1A1B2D for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 00:21:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dmzx0Fo9x83E for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 00:21:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.orange.com (p-mail2.rd.orange.com [161.106.1.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFCA41A0439 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 00:21:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 18902E3009D; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 09:21:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.194.32.11]) by p-mail2.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B8E4E3008C; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 09:20:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.193.116.76] (10.193.116.76) by FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (10.194.32.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 09:20:51 +0100
From: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
References: <D24CF2B7.37452%acee@cisco.com> <BLUPR05MB292E9628E4172C733C59BA8A9380@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5627CDF6.605@cisco.com> <BLUPR05MB292B99DA8B1B9E253A0E83BA9380@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5627F457.8020701@cisco.com> <BLUPR05MB2927E888C41831AF2786280A9270@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAG4d1rctdk6QcrhjEj2n-1VM2HTzQJvFxgamneis+fsiH0rcTw@mail.gmail.com> <562917FE.6070100@cisco.com>
Organization: Orange
Message-ID: <563B1160.9040804@orange.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 09:20:48 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <562917FE.6070100@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/Zk_YN6zuxTpNzYyIQV8jwLP4Xhw>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Regarding draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:21:08 -0000

Hi again,

One more point below:

Oct. 22, 2015 - Peter Psenak:
>> The TE Opaque LSA would be, presumably, required if SPRING is supported
>> which has no implications on whether RSVP-TE is enabled.
>
> SPRING does not use TE Opaque LSA.

[JM] Just a quote from draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing:
"The list of segments can be specified explicitly or implicitly via a 
set of abstract constraints (latency, affinity, SRLG, ...). In the 
latter case, a constraint-based path computation is used to determine 
the list of segments associated with the tunnel. The computation can be 
local or delegated to a PCE server."
Though, in the Routing area, "constraint-based path computation" and 
"affinity, SRLG" usually rely on TE/GMPLS opaque LSAs, you may advocate 
this is only implicit... However, when it comes to PCE, the references 
to RFC 3630 and 4203 extensions are explicit.

Regards,

Julien