Hi Faraz, Ok - now I understand. We will fix the incorrect terminology in the RFC 3137 Bis draft. It should not refer to LSInfinity as this is not an infinite metric. It simply discourages transit traffic.
Thanks, Acee On Jul 20, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
