> But the entire point of A-bit is that you are doing this exercise to make > sure your routers understand A-bit only one time. > > *[LES:] This does not mean that you can introduce support for a new > application (call it “bit N”) w/o upgrading your routers simply because you > already have A-bit support. I hope that is obvious. **😊* >
I beg to differ. In my books you can create new interesting topologies simply by selecting existing existing metrics on subset of links. And still say run Dijkstra on it. In your view - new application MUST use new metric which is something I fundamentally disagree with. > *My original point was simply that the statement about “backwards > compatibility” regarding A-bit isn’t accurate. Good that we now agree on > that.* > That is correct IMO. Thx, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
