Hey Acee,
1. looking fwd to read the revision with backwards
compatibility section and definition which Hello FSM states the
extension applies to
2. I try to read what you say carefully but
please clarify: there's nothing in rfc5613 that prevents LLC on any link
so do you mean, you suggest to use this TLV on unnumbered links _only_?
Or do you suggest that RFC3630 implies somehow that LS TE LSAs are used
on unnumbered links _only_? If so, I don't see anything in the RFC to
this effect ...
--- tony
On Fri, 5 May 2017 15:14:30 +0000, "Acee
Lindem (acee)" wrote:
Hi Tony,
The authors will cover this in the
next revision. Based on discussions, the usage of link-scoped TE LSAs is
limited to unnumbered point-to-point links. If this is the case, the
backward compatibility is much simpler than the other discussions we've
been having.
Thanks,
Acee
From: prz
Date: Friday, May 5, 2017 at
11:09 AM
To: Acee Lindem
Cc: OSPF WG List
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG
Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID
Advertisement"
Not sure it made it from my other address so rtx to the
list ...
A conditional against here ...
I am fine with adoption if
I see a version that spells the detailed behavior and especially
interactions between RFC4302 and this draft in a detailed section, i.e.
both on, RFC4302 gets configured/unconfigured, are the LLS extensions
advertised on every hello or just until a specific state (like ISIS
padding thingies) and so on ...
I'd rather have this now than a LC
discussion ...
The idea is deceptively simple but it is a redundant
mechanism and those always end causing inter-op problems unless cleanly
spelled out ...
--- tony
Links:
------
[1]
mailto:[email protected]
[2] mailto:[email protected]
[3] mailto:[email protected]
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
