RE: Routing drafts

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Greg,

On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Bernstein, Greg wrote:

> (1) On draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-02.txt -- Section 6 is where all the
> new material gets covered and is very important.  Can we pull the examples
> of sections 6.4.9 and 6.4.10 into a separate section (i.e., section 7) since
> they are quite lengthy and optional reading.  This draft contains the
> important concepts of Link protection type, Link Mux capability and SRLGs
> and should move forward.

Good observation.  I'll ping the editor.

> (2) On  draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-04.txt:
> (a) Why does Cisco get a set of reserved sub-TLVs? 32768-32772 - Reserved
> for Cisco-specific extension.

The draft defines several new sub-TLVs, but includes all the sub-TLVs
from the original TE draft so that there is one place to see all of
them, and to check for conflicts.  This draft *doesn't* define these
sub-TLVs -- where were you when the OSPF TE draft went through Last
Call *twice*? :-)

But to answer your question, I believe the ADs are looking into that.

> (b) Big issue -- The parameters for representing bandwidth on a link are not
> very appropriate for TDM signals or WDM signals.  I've included below some
> more explanation taken from the IPO working group draft. However, this is
> the same thing that led to us breaking out the traffic descriptor stuff in
> GMPLS signaling for the SONET/SDH case.  This is really needed here too.

I don't know that this is _really needed_.  Note that the bandwidth
encoding in signaling is a floating point number.  Perhaps this isn't
the most aesthetic way of carrying TDM signal information, but it works
adequately.  Is it worth carrying the information differently in
signaling and in routing, and differently for each switching type?
What is the tangible gain?

Which is not to say we can't discuss this.

Kireeti.