Comments: a) section 1. introduction last line
> the existing LSAs will be replaced _BY_ TLV-based extended LSAs. b) section 2. It may be well writing a sentence or two what should happen if an OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA changes its flooding scope (i.e. 9-11 changes) and what should happen if the same prefix appears in two different flooding scopes with different information (ignore prefix in both, prefer local scope info ? [i.e. ignore wider scope]). Leaving it open may lead to different treatement per router and surprising effects It may be also helpful to add that if an opaque extended is present but the prefix (of the according type) is not in the standard LSAs, such information must be disregarded. c) section 2.1 > Multiple OSPF Extended Prefix > TLVs MAY be advertised in each OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA but > all prefixes included in a single OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA > MUST have the same flooding scope. may be misleading. Since they are in a opaque, the flooding scope is controlled by opaque. If the type-5 vs. type-3 is meant than 'flooding scope' must be disassociated between 'opaque flooidng scope' and 'route-type flooding scope [as in we don't flood type-1 across ABRs]' ? d) I think it may be a valid suggestion to implementors that (for every version) the according LSA SHOULD be flooded _before_ the opaque LSA is flooded (which can be tad tricky [but doable] if the opaque carries a bunch of those]). Yes, with reordering of flooding etc. it's not a guarantee for anything but a good practice to give the protocol a chance to distribute the referent (LSA) before distributing any references (opaques) and additionally, will make sure that LSAs which are far more important normally get out the box before opaques. --- tony On 08/13/2014 06:12 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi, > > This new draft describes the generic prefix/link attribute opaque LSAs > that were previously included in the OSPFv2 Segment Routing draft. The > opaque LSAs described in this draft can be used by other OSPF WG candidate > drafts. There are already two implementations of the draft as part of > segment routing interoperability testing. Please read and comment. > Thanks, > Acee >
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
