Trimmed, In line.
On 5/24/2023 1:45 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
there are a few things to ponder:
- Looking at lispers.net the 254 value choice, it looks like a quick hack.
I would refer to it as a convienent solution that doesn't violate the spec.
<jmh>claiming that this alternative meaning is not a violation is quite
a stretch.</jmh>
- What about backward compatibility? If we allow overloading, there is no way
to understand whether a value indicates a “true” priority or something else,
different implementations may interpret the value in different ways with
unpredictable results.
It always means a true value from an xTR point of view.
<jmh>It is the true value because you said so. The important point
however is that you decclare that otehr nodes can tell that the
advertiser is an RTR from the priority. That is adding additional
inappropriate, and overloading meaning to the priority. <jmh>
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
