Speaking as WG member... Right, there was a protracted WG discussion. IIRC, Olivier was opposed based on some code he had written for quagga using OSPF TE LSAs for purposes other than traditional RSVP TE. At the end of this discussion, we reached WG consensus with the understanding that some code would need to change.
Thanks, Acee On 4/12/19, 10:50 AM, "Jeff Tantsura" <[email protected]> wrote: Olivier, +1 Peter. There’s has been significant amount of discussions on the topic some time ago, mostly with Chris Bowers. Please take a look, should provide more context. Regards, Jeff > On Apr 12, 2019, at 15:27, Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Oliver, > > There are two major purposes served by the drafts: > > 1)Support of incongruent topologies for different applications > > 2)Advertisement of application specific values even on links that are in > use by multiple applications > > These issues are clearly articulated in the Introductions of both > drafts. LSR WG acknowledged them a while back and decided to address > them. > > Issue #1 has already had a significant impact on early deployments of > SRTE in networks where there is partial deployment of SR in the presence > of RSVP-TE. > > Issue #2 will be seen in deployments where Flex-Algo and SRTE (or > RSVP-TE) are also present. Early implementers of Flex-Algo can attest to > this. > > It is simply not possible to address these issues with the existing > single set of application independent advertisements. > > The solutions we provide in both drafts allow to share the link > attributes between application as well as keep them separate if that is > what is required. > > thanks, > Peter > >> On 11/04/2019 19:43 , [email protected] wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm not in favour of this draft. >> >> As already mention, I don't see the interest to duplicate TE attributes >> in new Extended Link Opaque LSA. For me, it is only a matter of >> implementation to look at various place in the OSPF TE Database to take >> Traffic Engineering information. >> >> From an operator perspective, it is already hard to manage TE attribute >> and I'm pretty sure that we could not ask network management team to >> maintain 2 systems for certainly a long period of time as many TE >> attributes remains in the standard Opaque LSA Traffic Engineering. >> >> Regards >> >> Olivier >> >> >>> Le 11/04/2019 à 18:11, Acee Lindem (acee) a écrit : >>> >>> LSR Working Group, >>> >>> >>> >>> This begins a two week WG last call for the subject document. Please >>> enter your support or objection to the document before 12:00 AM (EDT) >>> on Friday, April 27^th , 2019. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lsr mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >> >> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. >> > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
