Speaking as WG member: Authors,
I think this draft is still flawed. Regarding the terminology, I don’t think it should refer to passive interfaces at all since they aren’t referenced in protocol documents. Rather, you should use stub-link consistently – including the title. However, I don’t think this makes any difference as I think you need to “go back to the drawing board”. Why do other routers in the domain need to know the link if it isn’t connected to any other routers? The stub-link is an artifact of OSPFv2 used to advertise local prefixes. As you noticed, it was removed in OSPFv3 and local prefixes are advertised in Intra-Area-Prefix LSAs (and E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSAs). I really think you are trying to advertise attributes of a prefix and not a link. In fact, in OSPFv3 there is no address associated with the link – I see you have attempted to remedy this by adding a sub-TLV to advertise the prefix associated with the link ;^). So, now this local prefix will be advertised two different ways? Specifically, what is BGP controller going to do with the stub link advertisement that it couldn’t do with a prefix advertisement? Also, why can’t the AS boundary router report the inter-AS prefix via BGP-LS? The other routers in the IGP domain have no use for this information. What is the use-case for knowing that a prefix is associated with a loopback? We already have the N-Flag (Node) for prefixes… What is your loopback use case? Also, what is the Vlan interface use case? What possible use could other routers in the domain have for this information? Thanks, Acee
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
