Hi Acee, Thanks for your comments. Please see my response in line.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: OSPF WG List > Subject: Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF - > draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-00 > > Authors, > > We will soon be progressing the OSPFv2 SR draft. What is your intent for this > draft? It is missing: > > 1. A figure with the RI encoding like other OSPF documents Will add two figures for ELC TLV and RLSDC TLV respectively. > 2. Discussion as to precisely how the capability would be used by a > router in > an OSPF routing domain. For example, must a router remove the EL if the > next-hop doesn’t support it? This document only describes how the ELC and RLSDC are advertised via OSPF. As for how these capabilities would be used are actually described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label. By the way, a router doesn't need to remove the EL if the next-hop doesn't support it. The only requirement on using EL is: An ingress LSR cannot insert ELs for packets going into a given tunnel unless an egress LSR has indicated via signaling that it can process ELs on that tunnel. > 3. A discussion of backward compatibility for the new Router-Information > LSA capability. Is it enough to add the following text: "To be compatible with RFC7770, ELC and RLSDC TLVs SHOULD continue to be advertised in the first instance, i.e., 0, of the Router Information LSA." Best regards, Xiaohu > Thanks, > Acee _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
