Hi Acee, I agree.
I believe we also need to clarify the applicability of LSInfinity for Intra-Area prefixes in SRv6 Locator TLV as well in draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions. Thanks, Ketan On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 1:33 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Peter, Ketan, > > > > We’ll do another WG last call on the updated IP Flex Algo document and it > will update RFC 8362. As you probably surmised, this is useful for OSPFv3 > IP Flex Algorithm when you want don’t want to use the prefix with the base > algorithm. > > > > *From: *Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Ketan Talaulikar < > ketant.i...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 3:35 AM > *To: *Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Cc: *"lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] RFC 8362 and LSInfinity > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > I support this "update" - not sure if it qualifies as a "clarification". > Also, this obviously is doable only when the network has migrated to use > only Extended LSAs (i.e., legacy LSAs are removed) as indicated in > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8362.html#section-6.1 > > > > In sparse-mode, the legacy LSAs are used. So if you want a prefix to be > unreachable with the base algorithm, simply omit it from the legacy > Intra-Area-Prefix LSA. > > > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 3:01 PM Peter Psenak <ppsenak= > 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > metric of LSInfinity (0xFFFFFF) has been defined in RFC2328: > > LSInfinity > The metric value indicating that the destination described by an > LSA is unreachable. Used in summary-LSAs and AS-external-LSAs as > an alternative to premature aging (see Section 14.1). It is > defined to be the 24-bit binary value of all ones: 0xffffff. > > RFC5340 inherited it from RFC2328: > > Appendix B. Architectural Constants > > Architectural constants for the OSPF protocol are defined in Appendix > B of [OSPFV2]. The only difference for OSPF for IPv6 is that > DefaultDestination is encoded as a prefix with length 0 (see > Appendix A.4.1). > > Both RFC2328 and RFC5340 used 16 bits metric for intra-area prefix > reachability, so the LSInfinity was not applicable for intra-area prefixes. > > RFC8362 defines 24-bit metric for all prefix reachability TLVs - > Intra-Area-Prefix TLV, Inter-Area-Prefix TLV, External-Prefix TLV. > Although it is silent about the LSInfinity as such, it is assumed that > such metric means unreachability for Inter-Area-Prefix TLV and > External-Prefix TLV. Given that Intra-Area-Prefix TLV now has 24 bits > metric as well, it would make sense to define the LSInfinity as > unreachable for Intra-Area-Prefix TLV as well. > > Would anyone object such a clarification in RFC8362? > > thanks, > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
