OSPF-xTE: Experimental Extension to OSPF for Traffic Engineering
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: RFC Editor <email@example.com> Cc: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Experimental RFC to be: draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-08.txt The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'OSPF-xTE: An experimental extension to OSPF for Traffic Engineering' <draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-08.txt> as an Experimental RFC. The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=7167&rfc_flag=0) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. The IESG contact person is Bill Fenner. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-08.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary
Technical Summary This document defines OSPF-xTE, an experimental traffic engineering (TE) extension to the link-state routing protocol OSPF. OSPF-xTE defines new TE LSAs to disseminate TE metrics within an autonomous System (AS), which may consist of multiple areas. Further, when an AS consists of TE and non-TE nodes, OSPF-xTE ensures that non-TE nodes in the AS do not see the TE LSAs by using an alternate OSPF flooding algorithm. OSPF-xTE generates a stand-alone TE Link State Database (TE-LSDB), distinct from the native OSPF LSDB, for computation of TE circuit paths. Working Group Summary The draft was discussed in OSPF and CCAMP WGs as an alternative to the technology described in RFC 3630. The decision was that the available solutions were adequate and there was no compelling reason to change the direction. Protocol Quality The document was reviewed by OSPF and CCAMP WGs as part of the discussion mentioned above. RFC Editor Note Please add the following IESG Note: The content of this RFC was at one time considered by the IETF, and therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in progress or a published IETF work. This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. Readers of this RFC should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment. See RFC 3932 for more information. See RFC 3630 for the IETF consensus protocol for OSPF Traffic Engineering. The OSPF WG position at the time of publication is that although this proposal has some useful properties, the protocol in RFC 3630 is sufficient for the traffic engineering needs that have been identified so far, and the cost of migrating to this proposal exceeds its benefits.