Subject: draft-ishiguro-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-01.txt

From: "Manral, Vishwas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 04:53:50 -0400

Hi Kunihiro Ishiguro,

I have the following comments: -

1. Section 4. states that  "Link State ID of Intra-Area-TE-LSA should be the
interface ID of the link".

If we are assuming that we have only one top level TLV in each LSA(as in
Katz-yeung) we should state the exception in case of such an LSA.

2. If we are using "neighbor-ID TLV" for point-to-point links also, we
should not need a Remote-Interface-IPv6 Address TLV, becuase we can easily
identify the other end of the link using the Interface ID.

Besides it would be nice to state we can support unnumbered links that way
in the document. Unlike katz-yeung which states "This document also does not
support unnumbered links"
Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: Kunihiro Ishiguro <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:28:10 -0700

>Katz-yeung) we should state the exception in case of such an LSA.

draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-08.txt
====================================
2.4.2. Link TLV

   The Link TLV describes a single link.  It is constructed of a set of
   sub-TLVs.  There are no ordering requirements for the sub-TLVs.

   Only one Link TLV shall be carried in each LSA, allowing for fine
   granularity changes in topology.

I'm following 'Only one Link TLV shall be carried in each LSA'.  Well,
I prefer to say it must in OSPFv3 TE...

>identify the other end of the link using the Interface ID.

Neighbor-ID TLV is used for any type of link.  We can map each TE
information to each link using Neighbor-ID TLV.  CSPF runs on the
constraint topology information then generates ERO.  Of course to
generate ERO, IPv4/IPv6 address information is needed.  Interface IPv6
Address information is for that.
--
Kunihiro Ishiguro