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

From: "Naidu, Venkata" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:44:02 -0400

Vishwas,

  I don't *fully* support to make PCS server an ASBR.
  IMO, we are overloading the functionality of ASBR.

  Otherway, I agree to Acee about backward compatibility
  advantages.

-> > Another way to do it could be to see if there is a route
-> to the PCS on the router.

  The way draft is right now is fine (as explained by Peter).
  Make reachability of the PCS server outside the scope
  of the document.

  The current OSPF-TE draft also does the same for Router
  Address (which is required to be routable always and
  very different from OSPF Router ID)

   The Router Address TLV specifies a stable IP address of the
   advertising router that is always reachable if there is any
   connectivity to it.

-> However because of the fact that a PCS could be
-> well in another domain/another area, and the prefixes are
-> aggregated, there would be no way to know for certain
-> if the PCS is up or not for certain.

  Vishwas, how is this different from normal prefix reachability
  when ABR is aggregating prefixes ? As we know, with aggregation
  we lose some information.

  In other words, if an internal router gets disconnected in an
  aggregated area, How are other area routers know about the
  fact ?

--
Venkata.