Hi Faraz,

On Jul 20, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Faraz Shamim wrote:

> Revising the last line in my e-mail:
> 
> Since RFC 3137 is now using LSInfinity for router link states, shouldn't WE 
> change the LSInfinity definition back to what it was in RFC 1247?

I don't understand since the LSInfinity is a 24-bit value and the link cost is 
only 16 bits. 


> Are there any plans to revise 2328 in near future?

No - it is actually one of the few Routing Area documents which has reached 
full standard. 

Thanks,
Acee 



> 
> 
> 
> From: Microsoft Office User <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:30:26 -0500
> To: <[email protected]>
> Subject: LSInfinity definition
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> The early definition of LSInfinity as defined in RFC 1247 is:
> 
> LSInfinity
>     The link state metric value indicating that the destination is
>     unreachable.  It is defined to be the binary value of all ones.  It
>     depends on the size of the metric field, which is 16 bits in router
>     links advertisements, and 24 bits in both summary and AS external
>     links advertisements.
> 
> 
> Then we changed it in RFC 1583 as:
> 
> LSInfinity
>         The metric value indicating that the destination described by a
>         link state advertisement is unreachable. Used in summary link
>         advertisements and AS external link advertisements as an
>         alternative to premature aging (see Section 14.1). It is defined
>         to be the 24-bit binary value of all ones: 0xffffff.
> 
> 
> The reason for this change was because of E.3 in RC 1583. Then comes RFC 3137 
> which started using LSInfinity in router link states again:
> 
>    o  costs of all non-stub links (links of the types other than 3)
>          are set to LSInfinity (16-bit value 0xFFFF, rather than 24-bit
>          value 0xFFFFFF used in summary and AS-external LSAs).
> 
> 
> So since RFC 3137 is now using LSInfinity for router link states, shouldn't 
> change the LSInfinity definition back to what it was in RFC 1247? Are there 
> any plans to revise 2328 in near future?
> 
> Faraz
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

Reply via email to