Hi Alvaro, Elwyn, From: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 3:46 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <[email protected]>, Elwyn Davies <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13
Hi! Yes, we cannot specify something that routers unaware of this specification should or shouldn’t do. I believe that Elwyn’s point is this: *if a router supports this specification* then when would it not advertise the ELC? IOW, the specification only obviously applies to implementations that support it — in that case I would think that if a router supports ELs on all of its interfaces then it would always advertise the ELC, right? That’s true – but not advertising the OSPF capability could imply that either ELC MSD or advertisement of the OSPF capability is not supported. Although I might not have worded it as such, that was clear to me from the text. Feel free to recommend alternate text if you feel it is necessary. Thanks, Acee Thanks! Alvaro. On May 11, 2020 at 3:18:34 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) wrote: Note that the optionality of ERLD-MSD advertisements appears on reflection to be a more serious issue than just an editorial nit. So what would you suggest? There are existing implementations that support multipath forwarding entropy using MPLS entropy labels but do not signal that capability in OSPF. We can't have a document that retroactively mandates that they signal it. This wouldn't be backward compatible. How can you possibly see this as a serious issue?
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
