Subject: Question concerning the draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic

From: "Nelke, Jens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:24:13 +0200

Hi everybody,

I am not sure if I understood the draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic right.
Under 1.1 the author is speaking of monitoring the extended link
attributes. Does this mean that the Routers will exchange data, about
for instance the available bandwidth on their links? This would result
in a LSDB based on unreserved bandwidth, but this Database would change
as the amount of traffic through the node increases or decreases. Should
the OSPF-TE react to these changes within the Database? Or should as an
example RSVP tear down some less important paths (would be quicker than
to run the CSPF)?  

I read in the draft that unnumbered links are not supported. I looked at
the drafts to which the document pointed out. But I am still not sure,
is it possible to use unnumbered links if the drafts OSPF-Extensions in
Support of Generalized MPLS and Signalling Unnumbered Links in RSVP-TE
are implemented? If not, is there any work done on this problem? 

It would be very helpful if anyone could give some advise on the topics
addressed above.

Regards 

Jens Nelke

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Dipl.-Ing. Jens Nelke             Datentechnik Intercom GmbH
Research&Development      Frankenring 14, 30855 Langenhagen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Tel.:   +49 511 978197-657       <http://datentechnik.com/>
Fax.:  +49 511 978197-670        <mailto:[email-masked]>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 07:13:37 -0700

> I am not sure if I understood the draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic right.

Not quite.

> Does this mean that the Routers will exchange data, about
> for instance the available bandwidth on their links?

"Available" means "available to reserve".  Reservations are usually
fairly static.

> This would result
> as the amount of traffic through the node increases or decreases.

No, the TE database would only change when reservations change, i.e.,
LSPs went up/down/changed their reservations/changed their path.

So, if an LSP _asked_ for 50 Mbps, but traffic over that LSP varied
from 0-50 Mbps, the TE database would not be affected.  If the LSP
decided to up its bandwidth to 100, then there would be change.

> I read in the draft that unnumbered links are not supported.

More accurately, not described in *this* document.

> But I am still not sure,
> are implemented?

Yes.

Kireeti.