Re: GMPLS Routing Drafts

["manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>]

Hi Kireeti,
            I have read the second last para of the draft. It
states "We call the interfaces over which regular routing adjacencies
are established "control channels". This definition restricts its scope
to routing adjacencies i.e. the control channels over which OSPF
control packets are going to be sent. Does this mean for sending the
GMPLS control messages, the same routing adjacencies are going to be
used ? If yes, then how to distinguish between the control channels
between two OSPF instances and GMPLS instances ? If no, then how this
GMPLS control channel information is transmitted in routing protocols ?

Regards,
manoj.



>From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
>To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Re: GMPLS Routing Drafts
>Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Hi Manoj,
>
> > In section 5.1 of Ist draft, it is mentioned
> > that "control channels are advertised into routing as normal links as
> > mentioned in previous section". But in previous section of document I,
> > there is no reference of control channels.
>
>Read the second last para of section 5.
>
> > Furthermore, in OSPF
> > extensions document (IInd draft), there is no mention of control
> > channels at all.
>
>Control channels are part of "regular" OSPF; the GMPLS OSPF draft
>deals with the formats of the GMPLS TE extensions.  As the abstract says:
>
>    This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing
>    protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
>    (GMPLS).  The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS-
>    ROUTING].
>
>BTW, since you have a penchant for pedantry, let me point out that
>it is inconsistent to call a "missing reference" (or a "no mention")
>an "inconsistency".
>
>On the other hand, we do appreciate your careful reading.
>
>Kireeti.
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp