Peter: Hi!
-18 still has one reference to the IA-flag in §8.1. Please remove it. Thanks! Alvaro. On November 16, 2018 at 1:20:18 AM, Mahendra Singh Negi ( [email protected]) wrote: Hi Acee/Peter, This change doesn't impact our implementation. Thanks, Mahendra -----Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 November 2018 20:55 To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]>; Mahendra Singh Negi <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions - small change Hi Peter, I agree - it is not needed in OSPFv3 Extended LSAs. Hi Dirk, Mahendra, How will this impact your implementations? Thanks, Acee On 11/15/18, 9:48 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" < [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Hi, as a part of the RtgDir review we got a comment about the usage of the IA bit in the OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV (Section 5). We defined this bit for OSPFv2 originally. In OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Range TLV is carried as a top level TLV of the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA, which is not specific to any route-type, so we needed a mechanism to prevent redundant flooding of Prefix Range TLVs between areas. In OSPFv3 however, we are advertising the Extended Prefix Range TLV in the type specific LSAs, so we can use standard rules to prevent the "looping" of advertisements. So we want to remove the IA bit from the flags field in OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV. I would like to know whether anyone has any objection. thanks, Peter _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
