Suresh, > Rohit, > > My comments were made solely in reference to the > draft-katz-yeung draft; not in comparison to any specific draft, > as you might believe. > > As for the comment from John Moy (circa July 2001) about the > availability of an inter-area OSPF draft, I do recall responding > that the inter-area draft was assuming additive properties to > TE metrics to advertise summary info. It is a mistake to assume > that all TE metrics can be additive. Below is a pointer to > the response I sent. > http://discuss.microsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-MSD.EXE?A2=ind0108&L=ospf&T=0&F=&S=&; > P=5937 Please look at draft-kompella-mpls-multiarea-te-03.txt, as at least some of the approaches described in that draft do *not* assume additive properties of TE metrics (and do not advertise summary info). Yakov. > This goes right back to the comment I made below about > using the draft-katz-yeung draft as the basis for inter-area TE. > > regards, > suresh > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rohit Dube [mailto:rohit@xebeo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 11:46 AM > To: srisuresh@yahoo.com > Cc: ietf@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; zinin@psg.com; > fenner@research.att.com; acee@redback.com > Subject: RE: Last Call: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2 > to Proposed Standard > > > > Suresh, > > You have brought up this issue on the ospf mailing list a couple > of times and as such the topic has been addressed on the list. > > Here is pointer to an email from John Moy (circa July 2001) > http://discuss.microsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-MSD.EXE?A2=ind0107&L=OSPF&D=0&I=-3&P > =15162 > and another more recent one from me in response to your email on your > alternate-te proposal > http://discuss.microsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-MSD.EXE?A2=ind0212&L=OSPF&D=0&I=-3&P > =6031 > > Best, > --rohit. > (OSPF WG co-chair) > > ::The draft is a solution to providing TE within an OSPF area. > ::The draft has serious scalability limitations in > ::extending this to inter-area and mixed networks (with TE and > ::non-TE nodes). Please see my comments below. I would not > ::recommend using this draft as the basis for building further > ::TE-extensions to inter-area and mixed networks. > :: > ::The draft apparently evolved over time with no requirements > ::document to guide it. The vendors and implementors behind the > ::draft may have been guided by different set of requirements > ::and motivations, such as having some working code. Unfortunately, > ::this ad-hoc approach has a cost. Any new requirements are having > ::to be met in a reactive mode and having to be provided as fixes > ::on top of this "working" code. This is not right and doesnt bode > ::well for the future of the protocol. > [snip] > >