Hi, I find Acee's proposal reasonable and support it "as is".
Regards, Jeff > On Jul 5, 2017, at 10:36, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Chao, > > I think rules (e) 1 and (e) 2 should remain to handle the case of an NSSA > that receives both the intra-NSSA LSA and a translated AS External LSA (via a > backbone path). I only think that rule (e) 3 needs to be relaxed. If we were > doing another NSSA BIS, I’d remove it completely but since we are just > talking about an Errata, I think we should just make the Router ID > tie-breaker optional. > > Thanks, > Acee > > From: Chao Fu <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 3:02 AM > To: "Balaji Ganesh (balagane)" <[email protected]>, OSPF WG List > <[email protected]>, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification > > Hi all, > > In my opinion rule (e) should be removed. ( > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=ospf&q=%5BTechnical+Errata+Reported%5D+RFC3101 > ). > If not, it should be clarified more including removing “2. A Type-5 LSA.” > > Regards, > Chao Fu > > From: OSPF [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Balaji Ganesh > (balagane) > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 14:01 > To: OSPF WG List <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification > > Hi all, > > Any views/comments on the below? > > Regards, > Balaji > > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: 19 June 2017 00:08 > To: Balaji Ganesh (balagane) <[email protected]>; OSPF WG List > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification > > Hi – I encouraged Balaji to post to the list is that I think many > implementations have ignored #3. I know that I changed the IBM implementation > to compute ECMP routes to multiple ASBRs and had the Redback implementation > do this from the start. Consequently, we’d like to solicit input as to what > other implementations do. If we can reach consensus on this, we could issue > an Errata to make this optional. > > Thanks, > Acee > > From: OSPF <[email protected]> on behalf of "Balaji Ganesh (balagane)" > <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 4:13 AM > To: OSPF WG List <[email protected]> > Subject: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification > > Hi all, > > When the metrics are same, RFC 3101 specifies the preference for > NSSA/External routes as follows. > In the section 2.5 Calculating Type-7 AS External Routes - 2.5.6.(e), it > says.. > > (e) If the current LSA is functionally the same as an > installed LSA (i.e., same destination, cost and non-zero > forwarding address) then apply the following priorities in > deciding which LSA is preferred: > > 1. A Type-7 LSA with the P-bit set. > > 2. A Type-5 LSA. > > 3. The LSA with the higher router ID. > > > Points 1 and 2 are clear.. > > However Point 3 specifies preference of an LSA with a higher router ID. Why > is it so? > > Should we not install ECMP paths in this case? > Is point 3 actually intended for NSSA translators to prefer a Type 7 LSA > which needs to be used for translation to Type 5? > > Considering the above 2 points, I guess point 3 needs to be modified in the > RFC to probably say.. > > 3. Preference is same, install ECMP paths. > Additionally if the router is an NSSA translator, > prefer the LSA with higher router ID for Type 7-Type 5 translation. > > Please let know any views/comments on the same. > > Regards, > Balaji > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
