Hi all,
Based on Isocore interoperability testing results
from the past few months, we've found the following issues to have
caused some confusion and differences in implementation. We'll list them
here in no specific order under 3 major
headings.
Addressing:
1. relationship between TE Router
ID and OSPF router ID
1.1 where to use TE Router ID, OSPF Router ID and
IPCC Address
2: IP reachability (what ID's are reachable IP
addresses)
3: what address is used in the signaling message
in the ERO/RRO
4: what is used in in the IF_ID_RSVP_HOP
4.1:
IP v4 Next/Previous Hop address
4.2: IPv4 address in the value
field
5: what is used in the destination IPv4
address in the session object
6: what is used in the sender IPv4 address
in sender object template
7: what is used as the Router ID in
LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID
RSVP message contents:
1: ERO/RRO: choice of outgoing vs. incoming
interface ID
2: Forwarding destination of Path message with
ERO
Control channel:
1: Best practice where multiple IP hops lie
between adjacent nodes
2: use of redundant/multiple IPCC. best practices
We're in the process of putting together what we hope to be a
comprehensive list of topics that may cause interop concerns. If people have
thoughts about other concerns as well, it would be great if you can email them
to the list or contact us directly.
Yumiko Kawashima
Ashok Narayanan
Eiji
Oki
Lyndon Ong
Vijay Pandian
Rajiv Papneja
Richard
Rabbat
Hari Rakotoranto
Kohei Shiomoto
Tomonori
Takeda