[Isis-wg] draft-ietf-isis-traffic-01.txt
Rajesh Saluja
rsaluja@BayNetworks.COM
Tue, 05 Oct 1999 10:27:56 -0400
Tony Li wrote:
>
> Next order of business:
>
> There's been a request that the WG consider "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
> Engineering" for publication as an Informational RFC.
>
> We would like to start a WG last call on this document. Please comment by
> Friday, Oct. 15, 1999, 12:01 Pacific Time.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony & Tony
I have few comments on the traffic engineering draft.
1. There is no support of I/E bit in the draft and
Henk agrees that there may be some implementations which
support I/E bit and it should be taken care.
2. The draft currently does not give a replacement for
external IP reachability though it has extended IP reachability
TLV as a replacement of internal IP reachability. It will be
nice if there is extended internal IP reachability TLV and
extended external IP reachability TLV.
3. Instead of having two solutions (traffic engineering
and domain wide) for route redistribution from L2 to L1,
won't it be nice to agree on a common solution? The traffic
engineering draft definitely does not address all types of
routes and preference order (as pointed out in earlier mails).
Probably using I/E bit in place of Up/Down bit and then using
domain-wide draft proposal, it is possible to reach a common
solution.
4. I find interoperability and implementation a big problem
with this draft.If I understand correctly, a router
supporting traffic engineering draft will calculate even
the conventional routes using the new extended TLVs and new
extended metric. Also the routers in the whole domain need
to be changed for consistent behavior. IMHO it will be
really wise to add a section on "Transition issues" in this
draft.
5. It seems that the traffic engineering draft is trying to
focus on lots of problems at the sametime namely extended metric,
route redistribution and traffic engineering. IMHO it can be cleaner
if it focusses only on traffic engineering extensions while working
peacefully with existing implementations.
Thanks,
Rajesh