hi tony, requiring send-side ordering is certainly intended well, but that in itself does not guarantee ordered delivery at the receiving end :-/.
IOW in case you have an application that needs both the 1) prefix-LSA and the 2) extended-prefix-LSA you need to have the logic that checks presence of 1) at the receiving end anyway. rather than doing things on the send-side let me suggest to check if you have got your act together during route-computation time. (this is a bit akin to IS-IS fragment zero handling - ala - if frag zero is not present then all non-zero frag content has to be disregarded). HTH, /hannes On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 02:34:54PM -0700, A. Przygienda wrote: [ ... ] | 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 _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
