Subject: IGP Extensions - CCAMP Milestones

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:14:46 -0000

Hi,

We have two immediate milestones to address:

Oct 05  First version WG I-D for Advertising TE Node Capabilities in ISIS
and OSPF
Oct 05  First version WG I-D for Automatic discovery of MPLS-TE mesh
membership

There are two personal submissions which address these topics:
draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt
draft-vasseur-ccamp-automesh-02.txt

I propose that we move these into the WG and then kick the tires
thoroughly.

Opinions please.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 00:30:05 +0100

adrian,

could you explain the reasoning for having a TE specific TLV in the 
auto-mesh document with area and AS-wide flooding scope while the TE 
router cap TLV is restricted to an area flooding scope ? shouldn't be 
one way or the other i.e. either restrict all TE info area-local or 
allow for TE router cap TLV with AS-wide flooding scope ?

note: there is nothing in the TE router cap TLV that would impact 
scaling more than the TE auto-mesh TLV does

thanks,
- dimitri.

Adrian Farrel wrote:

> .

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:57:53 -0500

Hi dimitri,

On Nov 16, 2005, at 6:30 PM, dimitri papadimitriou wrote:

> auto-mesh document with area and AS-wide flooding scope while the  
> TE router cap TLV is restricted to an area flooding scope ?  
> shouldn't be one way or the other i.e. either restrict all TE info  
> area-local or allow for TE router cap TLV with AS-wide flooding  
> scope ?
>

I guess that the reason for allowing both intra and inter-area  
flooding scopes for automesh is obvious (we need to have TE LSP mesh  
within areas and spanning multiple areas).

So your question is probably why don't we allow the TE router cap TLV  
to be flooded across the domain ? As far as I can remember JL already  
answered this question ... JL, could you forward your email again ?

In the meantime, I can answer it: the reason is that such TE node  
capabilities are used for TE LSP computation which cannot take into  
account nodes that do not reside in the node's area.

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:08:25 +0100

hi jean-philippe

JP Vasseur wrote:

> I guess that the reason for allowing both intra and inter-area  flooding 
> scopes for automesh is obvious (we need to have TE LSP mesh  within 
> areas and spanning multiple areas).
> 

would you also send the reply i provided in case

> account nodes that do not reside in the node's area.

i am not sure to understand why the path computation domain has to be 
limited on a 1:1 basis to a single routing domain

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:17:18 -0500

On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:08 PM, dimitri papadimitriou wrote:

>>> could you explain the reasoning for having a TE specific TLV in  
>>> the  auto-mesh document with area and AS-wide flooding scope  
>>> while the  TE router cap TLV is restricted to an area flooding  
>>> scope ?  shouldn't be one way or the other i.e. either restrict  
>>> all TE info  area-local or allow for TE router cap TLV with AS- 
>>> wide flooding  scope ?
>>>
>>> note: there is nothing in the TE router cap TLV that would  
>>> impact  scaling more than the TE auto-mesh TLV does
>>>
>> flooding scopes for automesh is obvious (we need to have TE LSP  
>> mesh  within areas and spanning multiple areas).
>> So your question is probably why don't we allow the TE router cap  
>> TLV  to be flooded across the domain ? As far as I can remember JL  
>> already  answered this question ... JL, could you forward your  
>> email again ?
>>
>
>> capabilities are used for TE LSP computation which cannot take  
>> into  account nodes that do not reside in the node's area.
>>
>
> i am not sure to understand why the path computation domain has to  
> be limited on a 1:1 basis to a single routing domain
>

what do you mean by "1:1 basis to a single routing domain" ?

JP.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:12:44 -0000

Thanks Dimitri,

I can't answer your question. The editors presumably can.

I hope this doesn't prevent us from making these WG documents, but rather
is a small technical point that needs to be resolved in the normal
process.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:40:36 -0000

Authors:

Please submit
  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt and
draft-vasseur-ccamp-automesh-02.txt
as
  draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt and draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-00.txt

with *no* changes except for document name and date.

Once you have submitted, please make sure that you answer and reach
agreement on the issues raised about these I-Ds on the list.

Thanks,
Adrian