Paul, There’s really no need for that to be a ‘MUST’. If multiple systems are advertising different proxy system identifiers, it should not cause confusion because all systems in the area should only use the identifier advertised by the area leader. The other values are irrelevant and should be ignored.
The only sane case where this might happen is if an area is being reconfigured to use a different proxy system identifier. This is a rare case, to be sure, but it is definitely not an error. Thus, saying ‘MUST’ seems unnecessary. Sane network managers should get the area back into a consistent state in short order. Regards, Tony > On Jan 21, 2024, at 5:52 PM, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Jan 21, 2024, at 20:45, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> Already done. Please see -12. > > Thanks, I had a look. Why did the MUST get changed to a SHOULD? It is okay to > state a MUST as well as an action when that MUST is violated ? > > Or was there another reason to change it ? > > Paul > > >> >> Thanks, >> Tony >> >> >>> On Jan 21, 2024, at 4:48 PM, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> These changes look fine to me. Please cut another draft and I will update >>> my ballot to No Objection. >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 4:15 PM Tony Li <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
