[OSPF] Re: [Fwd: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt]

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

JP - Sounds good.
Acee
JP Vasseur wrote:
> Hi Acee,
>
> On Nov 30, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>
>> Hi JP,
>> Looks good. See one question below.
>>
>> JP Vasseur wrote:
>>> Hi Acee,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments -
>>>
>>> As soon as you ACK that the changes address your comments I'll post 
>>> the updated ID.
>>>
>>> see in line,
>>>
>>> On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>>>
>>>> JP,
>>>>
>>>> One more comment - Please write the document so that it can
>>>> apply to OSPFv3 TE as well. The existing draft can be an informative
>>>> reference (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-07.txt)
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK. Text added:
>>>
>>> OLD:
>>>
>>>    The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST
>>>    appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself
>>>    carried within the Traffic Engineering LSA specified in 
>>> [RFC3630]. If
>>>    a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is
>>>    present, the receiving system MUST only process the first 
>>> instance of
>>>    the sub-TLV.
>>>
>>>
>>> NEW:
>>>
>>>    The Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST
>>>    appear at most once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself
>>>    carried within the OSPFv2 Traffic Engineering LSA specified in 
>>> [RFC3630]
>>>    or the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE LSA (function code 10) defined in 
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic.
>>>    If a second instance of the Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) 
>>> sub-TLV is
>>>    present, the receiving system MUST only process the first 
>>> instance of
>>>    the sub-TLV.
>>>
>>> see below
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Acee
>>>>
>>>> Acee Lindem wrote:
>>>>> I've reviewed the subject document and don't have any comments on it
>>>>> from the perspective of the OSPF WG. However, I have the following
>>>>> comments as a member of the routing directorate (copying JP):
>>>>>
>>>>>   1. Why the cryptic sub-TLV name? RFC 3630 doesn't define short
>>>>>       cryptic names for sub-TLVs so I don't really see why you've 
>>>>> defined
>>>>>       NB-0-BW-LSP? Why not just call it the Unconstrained LSP 
>>>>> Count sub-TLV?
>>>>>       Or at least come up with a better short name :^),  e.g. 
>>>>> BW-0-LSP-CNT.
>>>
>>> Yes, no problem. I renamed it ;-)
>>>
>>> Number of 0-bandwidth TE LSP(s) sub-TLV.
>>>
>>>>>   2. How did you arrive at 19 for the suggested value for the 
>>>>> sub-TLV type? I checked
>>>>>       IANA and 18 is the next available. I may be missing a 
>>>>> document though.
>>>
>>> As documented, 18 looks the next one available (when I first wrote 
>>> the ID I vaguely remember having seen another ID using 18 but I'm 
>>> not quite sure). Let's propose 18 and will see with IANA.
>>>
>>>>>   3. Do  you want to reserve a value (e.g., 0xffffffff) to 
>>>>> indicate no unconstrained
>>>>>       LSPs are to traverse a given link.
>>>
>>> Let's just use the value 0.
>> Since this is the current number wouldn't there be ambiguity between 
>> designating there
>> are currently no BW-0 LSPs traversing this link and no BW-0 LSPs are 
>> allowed
>> to traverse this linke?
>
> Other attributes such as affinity should be used to not allows 0-bw TE 
> LSP to traverse a specific link. This TLV is only used to report the 
> number of such TE LSPs traversing the link.
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>>>
>>>>>   4. Nit - in section 4, replace "OSPF LSA" with "OSPF LSAs" and 
>>>>> "ISIS LSP"
>>>>>       with "ISIS LSPs".
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>>>
>>> JP.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Acee
>>>>>              David Ward wrote:
>>>>>> Do you want our WG to review? Co-Last Call (as we have for other 
>>>>>> WG that
>>>>>> affect our protocol)? Do you have a desired date for end of last 
>>>>>> call from
>>>>>> the IGPs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -DWard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/4/06 5:01 AM, "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the MPLS working group want to notify the ospf and is-s
>>>>>>> working groups, as well as the routing directorate that
>>>>>>> we are currently doing a wg last call on
>>>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Loa and George
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: [mpls] WG Last Call on 
>>>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt
>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:08:10 +0200
>>>>>>> From: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> Organization: Acreo AB
>>>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Working Group,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this initiates a two week working group last call on
>>>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The wg last call ends on September 17.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please send comments to the working group mailing list and/or
>>>>>>> the working group chairs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Loa and George
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf