Re: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-00.txt

[Hannes Gredler <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 09:24:23AM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
| Hi Tony,
| 
| please see inline:
| 
| On 9/3/14 18:13 , A. Przygienda wrote:
| >Hey Acee,
| >>>>b) section 2.
| >>>>
| >>>>It may be well writing a sentence or two what should happen if an OSPFv2
| >>>>Extended Prefix Opaque LSA changes its flooding scope (i.e. 9-11
| >>>>changes) and what should happen if the same prefix appears in two
| >>>>different flooding scopes with different information (ignore prefix in
| >>>>both, prefer local scope info ? [i.e. ignore wider scope]). Leaving it
| >>>>open may lead to different treatement per router and surprising effects
| >>>as far as the information in the two LSAs are the same, having the prefix in two LSAs with different flooding scopes is not a problem - happens today with regular LSAs.) The problem would be if the content of TLVs associated with the prefix is controversial, in which case it would be a defect on the originator side.
| >>This is another case where the segment routing mapping server requirement makes this more complicated. I think the guidance for the case should be to give preference to the information in the LSA with area flooding scope.
| >agree.  preferring area (or in extreme case link scope ?) is simplest
| >resolution of the issue. Agree with Acee here.
| >
| >It's also wise to add 'if the same extended prefix TLV (i.e. for same
| >prefix) is seen twice in same opaque LSA only use the first and force
| >people to put all sub-tlvs into a single tlv.
| 
| it's kind of obvious, but we can add a text to be sure.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

only for the educated eye :-)