hey Acee, inline
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 3:30 AM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tony, > > Thanks for the review. > > On Feb 27, 2024, at 04:51, Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reading the draft quickly, here's bunch of observations > > " > > An OSPF router supporting this specification MUST be able to > advertise and interpret at least one 32-bit tag for all type of > prefixes. An OSPF router supporting this specification MAY be able > to advertise and propagate multiple 32-bit tags. The maximum tags > that an implementation supports is a local matter depending upon > supported applications using prefix tags. > " > > Since different implementations may support different amount of tags I see > that the draft says > > " > When propagating multiple tags, the order > of the the tags SHOULD be preserved. > > " > > this is IMO not good enough in case where two nodes advertise same prefix > with multiple tags, possibly differing or in different order. Some kind of > ordering is necessary then as well AFAIS. > > > I guess I don’t see the problem. A policy would look for a specific tag > and take a specific action. > > Note that for IS-IS tags so require ordering, see section 4 of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5130/. > I could possibly appropriate some of this text as it applies to OSPF. > > my point is that if you have multiple nodes advertising some prefix with different 3 tag combinations and you choose to only support 3 tags the result is undefined by this draft as to which tags propagate at the end, so the "order should be preserved" doesn't help > > > > > > " > This sub-TLV will carry one or more 32-bit unsigned integer values > that will be used as administrative tags. > " > > IMO behavior when none are carried nees to be specified if this is mandated. > is that a MUST in fact? > > > The sub-TLV is optional so if it isn’t specified than there are no tags > to match. What am I missing here? > it says "one or more" so the sub=-tlv without anything has no semantics. is that an operational error, is that normal (then why does the draft say one or more). it's a nit but those nits can be ugly in interops > > > > > Moreover we already have a tag in OSPFv2 on type-5 and type-7 and opaque can > advertise more tags. How do those interact ? > > > > I have this text in section 4 to provide backward compatibility: > > When tags are advertised for AS External or NSSA LSA prefixes, the > > existing tag in the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 AS-External-LSA and NSSA-LSA > encodings SHOULD be utilized for the first tag. This will facilitate > backward compatibility with implementations that do not support this > specification. > > oh, I missed that. sorry. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > that's it for the first > > thanks > > -- tony > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
