Speaking as WG Member:
Here is the update I intend to submit today:
Additionally, in Section 2.4.,first paragraph, "Changes to the Hello
Packet Processing", the text is updated to remove the non-inclusive
terms pertaining to unreachability handling as follows:
When an OSPFv3 router does not support this specification and an
interface is configured with the Instance ID corresponding to a
IPv4 AF, packets could be routed toward this interface and
dropped. This could happen due to misconfiguration or a router
software downgrade. Packet reception and dropping on an
interface not configured with the packet AF, e.g., IPv4 is
possible because a router that doesn't support this specification
can still be included in the SPF calculated path as long as it
establishes adjacencies using the Instance ID corresponding to
the IPv4 AF. Note that OSPPFv3 Router-LSAs and Network-LSAs are
AF-agnostic.
Figure 1: RFC 5838, Section 2.4 - Updated First Paragraph
Thanks,
Acee
On 7/7/22, 6:23 PM, "Alvaro Retana" <[email protected]> wrote:
On July 7, 2022 at 6:04:30 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Adrian:
Hi!
...
> I checked the mailing list and couldn't find any discussion of this point
so:
> is there any reason why the term "black hole" is also not being
addressed? It
> seems to fall under the NIST guidance ("Avoid terms that use ‘black’ to
mean
> something bad or negative") and is present in 5838.
No reason beyond the fact that we didn't comb through the documents enough
-- the initial focus being put on terms that may show up on CLIs.
If there's no objection we can update the draft.
Also, if there are other terms that we missed, please point them out.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
