Subject: Re: draft-vasseur-mpls-ospf-pcsd-discovery-00.txt

From: "Naidu, Venkata" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:05:26 -0400

Vishwas,

-> Can you tell me what problems you see with this? I did not
-> understand ur proposal either.

  I don't see any problem with your ASBR option for PCS.
  (except some extra Type 4 LSAs extra processing in ABR etc,
  which are tolerable). By doing so we get lot of advantages
  as explained by you and Acee.

-> Its about dynamically learning the existence of PCS by PCC

  I am suggesting a very simple change. Don't *mandate*
  the PCS to be an ASBR. Just *suggest* that making an ASBR
  will make PCC to learn about PCS *dynamically*.

  If the administrator is willing to do so, then he makes
  PCS an ASBR. If he doesn't (for his own reasons) he
  always has the option of making the PCS a non-ASBR. All
  the risk is administrator's (because he wanted the PCS to
  be a non-ASBR for his own reasons).

  I am just suggesting you a flexibility. Just don't take
  it so hard :) Again, your ASBR option is fine - but
  an intelligent administrator knows what he can do to
  make PCS reachable at all times.

  I am just giving you a suggestion with out losing
  functionality. I would like to know your thoughts -
  "why you want to make PCS always ASBR without giving
  flexibility to administrator ?".

  Please let me know your thoughts - Acee, Parker ?

--
Venkata

---

From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:54:09 +0200

Venkata,

>   Please let me know your thoughts - Acee, Parker ?

We use Opaque LSAs to transport some application specific information,
where OSPF is purely a transport mechanism. My feeling is that we should
not use OSPF to keep track of the reachability of the Opaque LSA source.
It's the application that should take care of the cases where the source
becomes unreachable.

my 2c,
Peter