Re: ospf te doc

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

Hi folks,

If it is felt that the value of TE LSA's per area/per router can exceed
65,536,  in that case using 24-bit value would be a clean approach.(However
I am not so sure about the above assumption and stability of the routing
domain incase we had a few tens of such routers!!!)

Also mind you fragmenting information into smaller LSA's though helps in
case of change by only flooding relevent information, fragmenting into too
many LSA's may not help in case of flooding/adjacency formation/refreshing
etc.

Thanks,
Vishwas

-----Original Message-----
From: Dovolsky, Dan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 7:16 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ospf te doc


Hi Kireeti,

Having Instance field 24 bits is 100% fine to me. (That's the way our OSPF
is treat it).

BTW, 16 bits Instance field it's not so large as it seems.

Let's take as an example application, where multiple TE resources advertised
per each TE Link. Suppose, some new TE Resource LSA is used for this
purpose. Then, it's much more easy to application to manage sepate TE
Resource LSA instance indexes per TE Link rather keep one global TE LSA
instance indexing. At least, it allows fast database lookup operation.
In this case 16 bits allows to only have very limited instance number of
such a resource TE LSAs per TE Link.

Dan.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:24 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ospf te doc


Hi Dan,

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Dovolsky, Dan wrote:

> I think, the Reserved field should not be checked at all on receive. All
32 bits of LSA ID should be treated as LSA ID. This allows more flexibility
for backward compatibility for future reuse of Reserve field.

Will making the Instance field 24 bits (i.e., the full Opaque ID) work
for you?

Kireeti.