Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV

[Alexander Okonnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,

Yes, RFC 8510 provides alternative mechanism, but link identifier discovery mechanism via link-local TE LSA is still valid. Hence, I think that early mentioned issues need to be addressed.

Thank you!

> 5 февр. 2019 г., в 21:29, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> написал(а):
> 
> Hi Alex, 
>  
> From: Alexander Okonnikov <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 12:59 PM
> To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV
>  
> Hi Acee,
>  
> Per my understanding Link Local/Remote ID Sub-TLV is to be conveyed in area-scope LSA to uniquely identify link between pair of routers. For link-local scope another Sub-TLV was introduced, for discovery of link IDs by two neighbors.
>  
> The context is completely different – see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8510.txt <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8510.txt>
>  
> May be, it is possible to reuse Link Local/Remote ID Sub-TLV (with Remote ID = 0) of Link TLV in link-local scope LSA, but the RFC follows another approach - to use another Sub-TLV and another TLV. I am not sure that we needed dedicated top-level TLV, though idea to use separate Sub-TLV seems to be reasonable.
>  
> It is also possible to use a sledge hammer to crack a nut…. 
>  
> Acee 
>  
> Thank you!
>  
> Best regards,
> Alexander Okonnikov
>  
> От: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Отправлено: вторник, февраля 5, 2019 20:21
> Кому: Alexander Okonnikov; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Тема: Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV 
>  
> Hi Alex, 
>  
>  
> From: Lsr <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Alexander Okonnikov <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 7:48 AM
> To: "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV
>  
> Hi,
>  
> I have question regarding RFC 4203, Section 3. That section introduces top-level TLV type 4 (Link Local TLV) and, at the same time, describes Link Local Identifier TLV. I guess that latter in fact is Sub-TLV of Link Local TLV. Also, IANA Considerations section doesn't mention that Sub-TLV, but only introduction of Link Local TLV. IANA has no corresponding registry  - "Types for Sub-TLVs of Link Local TLV (Value 4)".
>  
> I believe this example is actually wrong and section 3 should refer to the top-level Link TLV (value 2) defined in RFC 3630. The Link Local Identifier is the one advertised in Link Local/Remote Identifiers Sub-TLV (type 11) defined in RFC 4203 section 1.1. 
>  
> Hope this helps, 
> Acee
>  
> Thanks in advance.
>  
> Best regards,
> Alexander Okonnikov