Hi,
> Did you read the draft? The main difference is that since OSPF-GT is >> generalized to be used for non-routing, there is no installation of routes. >> > > Gyan> So The routes would be application use case specific “non > routing” routes for example for BGP-LS it would be the related LSDB data > that maybe similar data formatting as in RFC 7752 or new formatting > described in separate draft. The other possible use cases it’s “non > routing” use cases, however in the BGP-LS case it is routing related info, > not “non routing” related, so would this really be a good solution for > BGP-LS? I am thinking maybe not. > Guys, It really does not matter if the northbound distribution of link state data results in route installation or not. I understand why Acee is bringing this point, but holistically looking at the entire domain it is irrelevant. The data received is used for end to end path computation within a given domain which is equally critical as local route installation. So no matter what - Gyan you are correct here - it is better to be accurate. Thx, R.
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
