Hi Alvaro,
On 21/05/2020 13:44, Alvaro Retana wrote:
On May 21, 2020 at 6:05:41 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
Peter:
Hi!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As for other reviewers, many of my comments duplicate those for the OSPF
document; I expect that the analogous responses apply and am fine if
they only appear for one document's review.
Here, the question I have about normative language applies to the text
in Section 3:
When a router propagates a prefix between ISIS levels ([RFC5302], it
MUST preserve the ELC signaling for this prefix.
The scenario in question is analogous to the OSPF cross-area case: is
the router propagating the prefix between ISIS levels required to
implement this document; is preservation of the flag value a new
requirement from this document vs. a preexisting property; and is this
document trying to make normative requirements of devices that don't
implement this document?
##PP
this is a new requirement and only applies to the routers that support
this document. We are not making normative requirements of devices that
don't implement this document, we cannot.
Maybe we can add that it only applies to the routers that supports this
extension:
"When a router supporting this extension propagates a prefix between
ISIS levels ([RFC5302], it MUST preserve the ELC signaling for this prefix."
Would it work?
You're right, we can only apply requirements to routers that support
this specification. IOW, adding the clarification is not necessary.
My interpretation of Ben's question is two-fold:
(1) Would ISIS routers normally propagate the information to a
different level? The ELC is a new prefix attribute flag -- are prefix
attributes always propagated (unchanged) to other levels? If so, then
the requirement (MUST) is not needed. My reading of rfc7794 is that
the propagation is optional...
depends on the attribute or a bit. Some are propagated some are not.
That's why we are saying this one MUST be preserved.
(2) If the propagation is not automatic, and the L1L2 router doesn't
support this specification, then what are the drawbacks/failure
scenarios? IOW, for multi-level operation is it a requirement that
the L1L2 support this specification?
drawback are identical to what is mentioned in the Security
Considerations section.
thanks,
Peter
Thanks!
Alvaro.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
