Folks, > I would not be against mandating support of LLS parsing for > OSPFv3 AT support. It is as simple as examining the L-bit and > bypassing the LLS block to get to the AT.
Then the larger question is that should AT also include the LLS block when computing the hash? In either case this needs to be specified in the draft. > > > > I suggest that we leave out these details now. If we make a > good progress in the karp draft by the time this draft is > ready for IESG we could certainly add the required fields as > you have suggested. > draft-bhatia-karp-ospf-ip-layer-protection is still an > individual submission and I would not like to change things > here based on what has been proposed there! > > Agreed. Great! Cheers, Manav _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
