[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ason-routing-reqts: issue 2 architecture

To: "Ong, Lyndon" <LyOng@Ciena.com>, "'Vishal Sharma'" <v.sharma@ieee.org>, <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be>
Subject: Re: ason-routing-reqts: issue 2 architecture
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:36:08 -0000
Cc: "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
References: <829F074A10F98943A218DC363D09C92A01476AFB@w2ksjexg06.ciena.com>
Reply-to: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>

> Maybe I am misinterpreting Adrian's figure.  If it is possible
> to advertise from R1 that P1/P2/P3 are separate nodes with 
> links in-between, then that would I think be satisfactory.

Good. Let's state this requirement and move on.

> It was my belief (and maybe Don's as well) that to do this
> you needed to include node IDs for P1/P2/P3 in addition to
> R1 as the router address.  

Why do you need to know the R1 address?
Hint: Don't answer "because that is what the protocol says you must advertise"!

Is there a finctional requirement to know R1's router address?

> Sorry about using some poor terminology...

We're all learning.

Adrian

References:
- RE: ason-routing-reqts: issue 2 architecture
  - From: "Ong, Lyndon" <LyOng@Ciena.com>

Prev by Date: Re: ason-routing-reqts: issue 2 architecture
Next by Date: Stepping back from the ASON Routing Discussion
Previous by thread: RE: ason-routing-reqts: issue 2 architecture
Next by thread: RE: ason-routing-reqts: issue 2 architecture
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread