Hi Chris, Thanks for your comments - sounds reasonable to me. With inclusion of your comments - would you be satisfied with the solution proposed?
Thanks and have a great weekend! Regards, Jeff On Dec 4, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Chris Bowers <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Draft authors, I would like to suggest the following text for the Backwards Compatibility section of this document. ------- Some deployments of LFA and remote LFA currently rely on link attributes (such as SRLG and admin groups) being carried in the TE Opaque LSA. These applications are described in RFC 5286, RFC 7490, draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability, and draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection. When a network is using an application that relies on link attributes being carried in the TE Opaque LSA , care should be taken to continue to advertise the appropriate link attributes in the TE Opaque LSA. Note that a node that does not directly participate in remote LFA by originating repair tunnels itself may still need to continue originating link attributes in the TE Opaque LSA for use by other nodes in the network. Therefore, when evaluating software upgrades or configuration changes which may result in changes to which link attributes are being advertised in the TE Opaque LSA, even for a subset of routers in the network, care should be taken to evaluate the impact of that change across the entire network. ------- Thanks, Chris _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
