The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Feb> msg00098



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Handling multiple IP addresses on PPP interfaces with RSVP-TE

  • From: "Darek Skalecki" <dareks@nortelnetworks.com>
  • Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:32:05 -0500
  • CC: akyol@pluris.com, dkatz@juniper.net, mpls@UU.NET, swallow@cisco.com, tli@procket.com
  • Organization: Nortel Networks
  • X-Orig: <dareks@americasm01.nt.com>

Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> I am not from OSPF land :) and I don't have the latest version of the
> OSPF TE Extensions draft handy but I recall a statement in the draft
> indicating that each sub-TLV of the Link TLV may occur only once.

As you say, lifting this restriction is the easy way out, and makes
OSPF compatible with ISIS.  Forthcoming.

> In addition, the OSPF TE Extensions draft states that only a single Link
> TLV may occur in an Opaque LSA of Type 10 implying multiple Opaque LSAs
> for multiple Link TLVs. This again has a potential for a negative impact
> to OSPF operation in particular flooding. The question therefore is
> whether this restriction can also be lifted, i.e. Opaque LSA may carry
> more than one Link TLV.

This is actually a Good Thing.  Why would this affect flooding negatively?

Please correct me if I am wrong but there surely must be some extra overhead (bandwidth, memory and CPU) if N LSAs with a single TLV are advertized versus 1 LSA with N TLVs.
 
It would appear useful to decouple the flooding of independent TE links.
 
By removing the restriction of a single Link TLV per Opaque LSA does not prevent one  from advertizing a single Link TLV per Opaque LSA if fine granularity is required.
 
Kireeti.
-- 
Darek Skalecki
Nortel 
(613) 765-2252