Re: OSPF IGP Capabilities Draft

[Abhay Roy <[e-mail]>]

Acee,

One of the questions raised was, why do we need to advertise these
capabilities? I am glad to see that, there is at least one useful
application (as in PCSD).

I still have those reservations about the usefulness of many other
'capabilities' this document describes. IMHO, if the receivers of
these capabilities are just going to display it in a 'show'
command, we should NOT specify them in this document.

Regards,
-Roy-

On 01/30/03-0500 at 9:28pm, Acee Lindem writes:

> As many of you recall, we've discussed this draft at both
> the Yokohama and Atlanta OSPF WG meetings. I wasn't in Yokohama
> but apparently there were some present who voiced reservations
> with the draft. In Atlanta, there wasn't a lot of discussion (other
> than strong support from the authors ;^). We agreed to discuss this
> draft further on the OSPF list.
>
> Are there still people who have reservations with the draft?
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-raggarwa-igp-cap-01.txt
>
> [Speaking as a WG member]
>
> I think the draft is a natural mechanism for advertising new OSPF
> capabilities now that the LSA option bits have been exhausted.
> We've already extended OSPF to support traffic engineering (TE)
> information and this mechanism is slated to be used for propagating
> an OSPF router's ability to act as an MPLS TE path computation
> server (PCS).
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Acee
>