Hi Tony,
please see inline:
On 9/1/14 23:34 , A. Przygienda wrote:
Comments:
a) section 1. introduction last line
> the existing LSAs will be replaced _BY_ TLV-based extended LSAs.
ok,
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
as far as the information in the two LSAs are the same, having the
prefix in two LSAs with different flooding scopes is not a problem -
happens today with regular LSAs.) The problem would be if the content of
TLVs associated with the prefix is controversial, in which case it would
be a defect on the originator side.
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.
no, that is a valid case. One may want to advertise some extended prefix
attributes without advertising the prefix's reachability.
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]' ?
LSA can only have single flooding scope, so all information inside LSA
is limited to that flooding scope. That is what was meant by the above
texts.
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.
as I said, not flooding regular LSA, only extended LSA is a valid case.
thanks,
Peter
--- 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
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
