Hannes,
On 13.12.2012 15:57, Hannes Gredler wrote:
On Dec 13, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Peter Psenak wrote:
Hannes,
On 13.12.2012 15:21, Hannes Gredler wrote:
On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:43 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
[ … ]
can we say that the PQ node address used for targeted LDP session is selected
in following order of preference:
1. PQ node OSPF router-id, if it is advertised as /32 prefix by the PQ node
itself
2. Highest /32 address advertised by PQ node in it's Router LSA
Why do we need (2). What do we do if an interface cycles?
Surely the most we should say is that we SHOULD establish a TLDP session with
the
OSPF router-id, if it is advertised as /32 prefix by the PQ node itself, else
any
other IP address for the node may be used.
other implementations may not be willing to accept T-LDP sessions on
non-loopback
adresses.
how do you suggest to distinguish between /32 belonging to the loopback from
/32 belonging to other interface types?
for OSPF traffic engineering deployments:
- if a /32 stub route advertisement of a type-1 LSA matches the TE router
address TLV in the type-10 LSA
are we only allowed to advertise loopbacks in the TE TLV?
for OSPF non-traffic engineering deployments:
- if a /32 stub route advertisement of a type-1 LSA matches the router-id in
the LS header
does not work if the router-id is not advertised by the node as a
stub-link, which is a valid case.
thanks,
Peter
for IS-IS traffic-engineering deployments:
- if a /32 reported in any IP Reach TLVs (128,135, 235) matches the
TE-router ID TLV 134
for non IS-IS traffic-engineering deployments:
- if a /32 reported in any IP Reach TLVs (128,135, 235) matches the
- IP interface address TLV 132 (and this is the only IP interface address TLV
advertisement)
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
