Re: Working Group Last Call on "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF" (draft-ietf-ospf-mt-03.txt) - Corrected

[Acee Lindem <acee at CISCO.COM>]

Note that  this is a standards track draft. I neglected to mention this in
the original WG last call announcement.

There are, at least, two other subtle differences with RFC 1583 TOS routing:

    1. With RFC 1583 TOS routing the TOS or DSCP in the IP header mapping
         directly to the the corresponding OSPF SPF and RIB. With 
multi-topology
         routing, the classification of what type of traffic maps to 
which topology is
         not within the scope of the document (other than the default 
unicast and
        default multicast topologies are reserved). There are 
appropriate warnings
        that all routers in the OSPF routing domain should classify 
traffic
        consistently.

    2. With RFC 1583 TOS routing, traffic which is unreachable in the RIB
         associated with the corresponding TOS will revert to the TOS 0
         RIB. With multi-topology routing, this is an option but not 
required. Of
         course, all routers in the OSPF routing domain should make 
this decision
         consistently.

Thanks,
Acee

Peter Psenak wrote:

> Yakov,
>
> Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> >
> > > This is the start of a Working Group last call for
> > > "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF" (draft-ietf-ospf-mt-03.txt).
> > > All comments should be sent to this list by 12 AM (EDT), 04/19/2005.
> >
> >
> >
> > How is computing different paths for different classes of service
> > mention in the draft differs from ToS routing ?
>
>
> one difference compared to ToS routing as specified in 1583 is the 
> ability to include/exclude each link/prefix in/from each topology.
>
> Peter
>
> > Yakov.