Hi all,
On second thought, I would like to retract and amend part of my answer to Paul. >> I have a few minor discusses, which could be just because I'm not an ISIS >> expert. Please bear with me :) >> >> Multiple proxy system identifiers in a single area is a >> misconfiguration and each unique occurrence SHOULD be logged. >> >> This does not really answer what systems should do in this case? Use none >> of them? What would the implication be? Use the one advertised by most nodes? >> What would the risk be with that? The answers would be great additions to the >> Security Considerations :) > > > I propose to amend this to read: > > Multiple proxy system identifiers in a single > area is a misconfiguration and each unique occurrence > SHOULD be logged and the Area Leader MUST NOT generate the > Proxy LSP. My proposal is unnecessarily draconian and disruptive. A better approach would be: Multiple proxy system identifiers in a single area is a misconfiguration and each unique occurrence SHOULD be logged. Systems should use the proxy system identifier advertised by the Area Leader. I will maintain an increased level of caffeination. My apologies for the confusion. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr