Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Naidu, Venkata (Venkata.Naidu_at_MARCONI.COM)
Date: Thu Aug 08 2002 - 09:44:02 CDT
I don't *fully* support to make PCS server an ASBR.
IMO, we are overloading the functionality of ASBR.
Otherway, I agree to Acee about backward compatibility
-> > Another way to do it could be to see if there is a route
-> to the PCS on the router.
The way draft is right now is fine (as explained by Peter).
Make reachability of the PCS server outside the scope
of the document.
The current OSPF-TE draft also does the same for Router
Address (which is required to be routable always and
very different from OSPF Router ID)
The Router Address TLV specifies a stable IP address of the
advertising router that is always reachable if there is any
connectivity to it.
-> However because of the fact that a PCS could be
-> well in another domain/another area, and the prefixes are
-> aggregated, there would be no way to know for certain
-> if the PCS is up or not for certain.
Vishwas, how is this different from normal prefix reachability
when ABR is aggregating prefixes ? As we know, with aggregation
we lose some information.
In other words, if an internal router gets disconnected in an
aggregated area, How are other area routers know about the