[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LC comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt
- To: Zafar Ali <zali@cisco.com>
- Subject: Re: LC comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt
- From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, <abanerjee@calient.net>, <jdrake@calient.net>, <greg@ciena.com>, <dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com>, <eric.mannie@gtsgroup.com>, <dsaha@tellium.com>, <v.sharma@ieee.org>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
- In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20020412013258.046b6e78@sword.cisco.com>
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Zafar Ali wrote:
> A way of exchanging the Link Identifiers for Unnumbered TE links (with
> interface switching cap of PSC-1 to PSC-4) is missing from the draft. In
> ISIS, the unnumbered TE link identifiers can be exchanged using Link
> Identifies in the Extended Local Circuit ID field of the "Point-to-Point
> Three-Way Adjacency" IS-IS Option type [draft-ietf-isis-3way-05.txt]. Can
> you please define an equivalent mechanism for the OSPF in the draft?
Excellent point. We have a way of doing this (namely, a link-local
opaque LSA, similar to grace-LSAs), but we weren't sure whether to put
it in this draft or a companion draft.
To keep the parallelism with the ISIS draft, we should probably just
add this specification to this draft ...
Kireeti.