Hello,

I support this draft, however would like the following aspect/scenario 
clarified.

Consider the scenario where both the neighbours on a p2p link initiate the 
reverse metric procedure (i.e. include the TLV in their hellos concurrently). 
How are implementations supposed to handle this? Normally the choice of metric 
conveyed via this TLV is based on a particular condition (which need not just 
be "overload") on the local router which requires the neighbour to use shift to 
using the reverse metric supplied. So when both neighbours initiate this 
process, it would be good to have the specification provide a deterministic 
behaviour since the reverse metric values provided may conflict in certain 
"non-overload" conditions. If both routers simply accept the value supplied by 
their neighbour, it may not achieve the original purpose/design of this 
triggering this mechanism?

Following options come to my mind:
a) when this condition is detected, none of the routers actually apply the 
reverse metric procedure
b) when this condition is detected, the router with higher/lower system-id 
value (or some such tiebreaker) wins and the other withdraws its reverse metric 
(until then (a) applies)
c) some mechanism/rule that is based on the value of metric offset specified 
perhaps (made harder since the actual metric is not signalled but the offset) 
which determines the "winner" so the other withdraws their TLV.

Since the mechanism is not specific to overload conditions (where this is not 
an issue), it may be necessary for the specification to clarify this behaviour 
to ensure interoperability.

Thanks,
Ketan

-----Original Message-----
From: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
Sent: 16 November 2017 04:13
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07


The authors have asked for and we are starting a WG Last Call on

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric/

which will last an extended 3 weeks to allow for IETF100.

Thanks,
Chris.

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

Reply via email to