Re: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator

Hi Acee,

Sorry for the late response.

We will add the following text in the next update

“When multiple S-BFD discriminators are advertised how a given
discriminator is mapped to a specific use case is out of scope for this
document.”

Will address the other minor comments in the next rev.

Cheers, Manav

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> I have one major comments and I’ve copied Alvaro since he is reviewing the
> base S-BFD drafts.
>
>   If an OSPF router advertises multiple BFD discriminators, how do the
> other OSPF routers in the OSPF routing domain map the S-BFD discriminators
> to the OSPF router IP endpoints and services?
>
> I also have some minor comments:
>
>   1) This draft should reference the RFC 4970BIS draft as this is in RFC
> EDIT state.
>   2) Section 2.1 - The base RFC 4970BIS draft states that unrecognized
> TLVs are ignored (as stated in section 3). This is not specific to this
> TLV.
>   3) Section 2.2 - This says the Opaque ID must be 0. Note that an OSPF
> router can now originate multiple OSPF RI LSAs instances. I think this TLV
> should be allowed in an OSPF RI LSA subsequent to the first.
>   4) Section 2.2 - I don’t think we should advocate sending an empty OSPF
> Router Information LSA. I’d remove this case.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>