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

[Peter Psenak <ppsenak at CISCO.COM>]

Thomas,

please see inline:

Henderson, Thomas R wrote:

>>Section 4.4.
>>
>>- sending of OSPF control packets is unchanged from RFC2328
>>- link being enabled/disabled in the default topology only
>>affects what is being advertised by OSPF. It does not affect
>>installation of connected routes to the RIB that corresponds
>>to the default topology
>
>
> I don't think that the existing text is saying the above bullets, or at
> least, it is possible to interpet it differently (as I apparently did).
>
> Is the following what you want to say?
> "Sending of OSPF control packets is unchanged from RFC2328, except in
> the case of sending OSPF packets across virtual links, in which case the
> intra-area path of the virtual link MUST only be composed of links on
> the default topology, and OSPF control packets being forwarded MUST be
> forwarded using the default topology."
>
> If so, I would suggest changing 3.3 to the above, and removing 4.4.
>

even the case of VL does not really change from the RFC2328. What about 
this wording:

"Sending of OSPF control packets is unchanged from RFC2328. For OSPF 
control packets sent to the remote end of the VL, intra-area path to the 
remote end MUST only be composed of links in the default topology and 
OSPF control packets being forwarded MUST be forwarded using the default 
topology."

4.4 was added to make it clear that disabling the default topology on 
the interface only affects what OSPF advertises and has no impact on 
installation of connected route in default RIB.


>
>>   MTRoutingExclusionCapability
>>     This is a configurable parameter that will be used to facilitate
>>     the introduction of MT routers in an area and ensure backward
>>     compatibility.
>
>
> vs.
>      DefaultExclusionCapability
>        This configurable parameter, if enabled, enforces that all
> adjacent neighboring routers have the same capability enabled, such that
> the default topology can be disabled on a link without causing backward
> compatability problems.

ok, DefaultExclusionCapability be it.

Peter