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,

Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
>
>
> Returning to a point that Peter made:
>
>
>>- one can define various forwarding behaviors with different
>>results. As
>>you said implementation can provide a configurable forwarding
>>behavior.
>>- what we specified in the draft was how OSPF should compute
>>paths and
>>populate topology specific RIB. I'm not sure the specification of how
>>the forwarding entries in various RIBs/FIBs are used during the
>>forwarding belongs to this draft.
>
>
> If you want to take the stance that forwarding is out of scope of the
> draft (that it only deals with how to build MT RIB-- not how to convert
> that RIB into a FIB), then I would suggest that the wording in 3.8 be
> tweaked, because it is making statements about how forwarding works that
> preclude the forwarding behavior described above.
>
> New suggestion:
>
> "This document describes how multiple topologies can be built in OSPF's
> routing information base.  It is outside of the scope of this document
> to describe how these routes are mapped to forwarding rules.  It is also
> outside of the scope of this document to consider different methods of
> associating an incoming packet to a corresponding topology.  User
> configuration MUST be consistently applied in a network to avoid
> incorrect forwarding behavior."

I'll reword 3.8

Peter