Hi Vishwas,
Vishwas Manral wrote: >>>>> The document says the block can only be attached to Hello and DD >>>>> packets, I would prefer the signaling to be able to be attached >>>>> to any >>>>> packets. Thus making OSPF packets truly extensible. >>>>> >>>> I think that since this is "Link-Local" signaling, hello and DD >>>> packets make the most sense. In fact, at one time I had argued to >>>> limit it to hellos but the authors said there were cases where >>>> appending the signaling to the next DD would result in the signaling >>>> being communicated faster. However, since a hello can safely be sent >>>> at any time, I still feel limiting it to hello would be better :^). >>>> >>> I do not see a reason to not allow LLS to packets other than Hello and >>> DD. Its all about future extensibility here. We should try to be >>> future proof by allowing the same. If a TLV is not expected in a >>> packet it can anyway be ignored. >>> >> This doesn't come for free. What types of things do you see LLS being >> used to signal on the other packet types? The same or different as >> hello and DD? This is for one hop signaling. >> > All OSPF packets are one hop signaled, unlike IS-IS, where the same > LSP needs to be flooded through the domain. > > Given that the Options field is primarily useful in Hello and DBD packets (which is required to convey the presence of LLS block), I see no benefit in having LLS in other packet types. Thanks, Liem _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
