Hi Acee, Yes, RFC 8510 provides alternative mechanism, but link identifier discovery mechanism via link-local TE LSA is still valid. Hence, I think that early mentioned issues need to be addressed.
Thank you! > 5 февр. 2019 г., в 21:29, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> написал(а): > > Hi Alex, > > From: Alexander Okonnikov <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 12:59 PM > To: Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV > > Hi Acee, > > Per my understanding Link Local/Remote ID Sub-TLV is to be conveyed in > area-scope LSA to uniquely identify link between pair of routers. For > link-local scope another Sub-TLV was introduced, for discovery of link IDs by > two neighbors. > > The context is completely different – see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8510.txt > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8510.txt> > > May be, it is possible to reuse Link Local/Remote ID Sub-TLV (with Remote ID > = 0) of Link TLV in link-local scope LSA, but the RFC follows another > approach - to use another Sub-TLV and another TLV. I am not sure that we > needed dedicated top-level TLV, though idea to use separate Sub-TLV seems to > be reasonable. > > It is also possible to use a sledge hammer to crack a nut…. > > Acee > > Thank you! > > Best regards, > Alexander Okonnikov > > От: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Отправлено: вторник, февраля 5, 2019 20:21 > Кому: Alexander Okonnikov; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Тема: Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV > > Hi Alex, > > > From: Lsr <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of > Alexander Okonnikov <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 7:48 AM > To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV > > Hi, > > I have question regarding RFC 4203, Section 3. That section introduces > top-level TLV type 4 (Link Local TLV) and, at the same time, describes Link > Local Identifier TLV. I guess that latter in fact is Sub-TLV of Link Local > TLV. Also, IANA Considerations section doesn't mention that Sub-TLV, but only > introduction of Link Local TLV. IANA has no corresponding registry - "Types > for Sub-TLVs of Link Local TLV (Value 4)". > > I believe this example is actually wrong and section 3 should refer to the > top-level Link TLV (value 2) defined in RFC 3630. The Link Local Identifier > is the one advertised in Link Local/Remote Identifiers Sub-TLV (type 11) > defined in RFC 4203 section 1.1. > > Hope this helps, > Acee > > Thanks in advance. > > Best regards, > Alexander Okonnikov
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
