Hi Alex,
I believe you are right in saying that the RFC 4203 defined Link Local
Identifier sub-TLV of the Link Local TLV, but did not do any IANA
registration for it.
thanks,
Peter
On 05/02/2019 20:40 , Alexander Okonnikov wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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
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
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
