Hi Pete,
I believe the new text in the section 5 of the aforementioned I-D is a
nice improvement for the specification (thank you Chris).
However, the current version still says "TE will use the information in
the TE Opaque LSA and the non-TE applications will use the information
in the OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA". Then remote LFA joins the
party, and I wonder if it is a "TE application" or not. As "there is no
IETF specification documenting" what would strictly fall under "TE
application" or "non-TE application", and even no real need to define a
strict boundary, I consider that sentence as over-specification and
suggest to jusst drop it. That would let applications themselves look
for that information where relevant/specified, whether they
philosophically feel like being TE or not.
What is more, I really think that the current wording is too loose in
"it is expected that the information in these LSA [sic] would be
identical". I do not see the drawback of having full alignment of values
in case of duplication, but I see the operational risk of nightmare in
case they are not. As a result, I suggest to rephrase into: "If the same
link attribute is advertised in both LSAs, the information in these LSAs
MUST be identical."
Cheers,
Julien
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
