Peter, >From: Peter Psenak > >Hannes, > >On 12.12.2012 17:05, Hannes Gredler wrote: > >> in favor of explicit advertisement, i'd rather do 3 rules here : >> >> 1. PQ node OSPF router-id, if it is advertised as /32 prefix by the PQ node >itself >> 2. PQ node TE adress, if it is advertised as /32 prefix by the PQ node itself >> 3. Highest /32 address advertised by PQ node in it's Router LSA > >ether (1) or (3) is mandatory for the t-LDP session creation. (2) is >optional and not sufficient for t-LDP session, so we can not have it >before (3). > >It looks to me we are trying to solve the configuration problem which >should not be addressed here.
It looks to me that we are trying to address the network management problem and deployability/interoperability in a multi-vendor network. May be this can be done by configuration. In this case, could you please elaborate on what you propose? Given that at least two routers (the PLR and the PQ) must agree on establishing the T-LDP session, there is a priori room for coordination. And given that a PLR (resp. PQ) needs to be able to use (resp. used) "any" PQ (resp. PLR), it seems useful that the same mechanism be shared by all PQs and PLRs, rathers than one relying on ISIS tag, another on order of IP addresses, another on static address range... Hannes' request seems a relevant point to discuss on the mailing list and IMO the R-LFA draft should discuss this. Even if the R-LFA proposition is not specific to a network environment (e.g. type of tunnels) the goal is to _deploy_ the R-LFA proposition. And that deployment will be a specific environment, where this is expected to work. I also think MPLS tunnels (LSPs) established by LDP seems a reasonably popular target deployment. Unless it is believed that a local algorithm, without coordination between routers/vendor, can work in 100% of the cases. Is this your point? Thanks, Regards, Bruno >thanks, >Peter >_______________________________________________ >rtgwg mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
