Hi Chris,
On 12/4/15 18:32 , Chris Bowers 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.
Here I would add:
"Doing so would make the link part of the traffic engineering topology
as defined in RCF 3630."
"Advertising the particular link attribute in TE Opaque LSA does not
prevent the same attribute to be advertised in Extended Prefix LSA for
the same link."
thanks,
Peter
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]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
