> On Jan 12, 2022, at 3:10 PM, Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: > > m having a little trouble fully understanding what you're saying here. > > However, I think what is being done is the user configures one router (e.g., > configures "isis passive" on "interfaec Foo0"), and the fact of that > configuration is then transmitted inside the IGP. Other routers in the same > domain then see and act on this configuration. > > That is exactly what a network management system is for. This can and should > all be done with a network management system not the routing protocol.
Chris, We have ample precedent for carrying TE information in the IGP. While you may regret that precedent, it is set. AFAICT, the only thing different here is that there’s no actual adjacency on the link. I see no reason to treat it as anything other than a normal adjacency (perhaps to system id 0000.0000.0000?). The two-way check will exclude it from within SPF. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
