In message <[email protected]> Robert Raszuk writes: > Hi Fred, > > I think the point is that in your algorithm you stated this step: > > > (3) It has to change its RID and start from the beginning. > > I would say (perhaps in line with Curtis comment) that this step is > unrealistic. RID for many reasons (for example mpls-te) is hard > configured in link state IGPs.
If it is hard configured, then is has to be configured correctly. Otherwise you have a conflict among two configured RID, then you have a persistent non-working network. If a autoconfig guy comes along and stomps on it, then only the autoconfig guy backs off. > Worse - some vendors - do base on this their very cool hack to forward > v6 traffic over v4 TE LSPs. > > So I think statement that router has to change it's RID is > operationally non starter. So you are saying that a vendor has a hack (private undocumented extension might be the market-speak) that is not backwards compatible to other implementations *of a full standard* and we can't create a backwards compatible extension because it would interfere with the hack? (which you think is a very cool extension?) > Cheers, > R. > > > On Oct 15, 2011, at 6:35 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > > >> All adjacencies have to go down to change router-id. The other end of > >> the adjacency will withdraw its side of the adjacency. > > > > well, yes, and if I change my routerid, all adjacencies will go > >down. Not sure what the point here is... Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
