Re: [OSPF] Database Exchange Summary List Optimization

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi Richard,

Richard Ogier wrote:
> I have one concern.  What if some future extension of OSPF assumes that
> DD packets list all LSAs as specified in RFC 2328, e.g., so that some
> action can be taken that depends on how "out of sync" the new neighbor
> was.  If someone implements the optimization without any indication
> (such as a new option bit), then a future extension
> might incorrectly conclude that the new neighbor was out of sync
> and take the wrong action.  This could be fixed either by including
> a new option bit, or by changing the spec of OSPF to allow the
> optimization.  Is this a valid concern?
I'm not sure that I can think of any optimization that would rely on
the neighbor sending a full database snapshot. Especially, when you
consider that it would need to be fully backward compatible Can
you imagine any?

Anyway, if this is a concern the document would needs to be standards
track and I think we should use a bit in the database exchange I_M_MS
field rather than the options (there are no free bit left in OSPFv2).

Thanks,
Acee

>
>
> Richard
>
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf