IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Rohit Dube <rohit@XEBEO.COM> Mon, 21 October 2002 23:11 UTC

Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18679 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:11:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from walnut (209.119.0.61) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <11.00785CA5@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:14:11 -0400
Received: from DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM by DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 323265 for OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:14:10 -0400
Received: from 204.192.44.242 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0f) with TCP; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:14:10 -0400
Received: (qmail 23957 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2002 23:14:10 -0000
Received: from bigbird.xebeo.com (192.168.0.21) by lxmail.xebeo.com with SMTP; 21 Oct 2002 23:14:10 -0000
Received: from bigbird.xebeo.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bigbird.xebeo.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26019 for <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:14:10 -0400
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID: <200210212314.TAA26019@bigbird.xebeo.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:14:10 -0400
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
From: Rohit Dube <rohit@XEBEO.COM>
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-katz-yeung-traffic-08.txt
To: OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
In-Reply-To: Message from Sina Mirtorabi <sina@CISCO.COM> of "Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:58:06 PDT." <ECEBIKJEBCOMCBDBKDNBIEAHCFAA.sina@cisco.com>
Precedence: list

Hi Sina,

Just to clarify a bit more, there are two points here -
a) Should more than 2 nodes be allowed on multi-access links or
   not.
b) Be clear about the decision in (a) and reflect it appropriately
   in the document.

WRT (a), I am fine with either approach but prefer the former (at max
2 nodes) as TE with > 2 nodes on the same multi-access links seems
a bit un-natural when compared to the two node case. The two node
case is well understood and known to work.

Have you (or others) implemented OSPF-TE with more than two nodes?
Any experiences to share?

--rohit.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email