Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"

[prz <[e-mail]>]

Hey Acee,  

1. looking fwd to read the revision with backwards
compatibility section and definition which Hello FSM states the
extension applies to 

2. I try to read what you say carefully but
please clarify: there's nothing in rfc5613 that prevents LLC on any link
so do you mean, you suggest to use this TLV on unnumbered links _only_?
Or do you suggest that RFC3630 implies somehow that LS TE LSAs are used
on unnumbered links _only_? If so, I don't see anything in the RFC to
this effect ...  

--- tony  

On Fri, 5 May 2017 15:14:30 +0000, "Acee
Lindem (acee)"  wrote:  
Hi Tony,  

The authors will cover this in the
next revision. Based on discussions, the usage of link-scoped TE LSAs is
limited to unnumbered point-to-point links. If this is the case, the
backward compatibility is much simpler than the other discussions we've
been having.  

Thanks, 
Acee  

From: prz 
Date: Friday, May 5, 2017 at
11:09 AM
To: Acee Lindem 
Cc: OSPF WG List 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG
Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID
Advertisement" 

Not sure it made it from my other address so rtx to the
list ...  

A conditional against here ...  
I am fine with adoption if
I see a version that spells the detailed behavior and especially
interactions between RFC4302 and this draft in a detailed section, i.e.
both on, RFC4302 gets configured/unconfigured, are the LLS extensions
advertised on every hello or just until a specific state (like ISIS
padding thingies) and so on ...  
I'd rather have this now than a LC
discussion ...  
The idea is deceptively simple but it is a redundant
mechanism and those always end causing inter-op problems unless cleanly
spelled out ...  
--- tony  

     

Links:
------
[1]
mailto:[e-mail]
[2] mailto:[e-mail]
[3] mailto:[e-mail]