On 08/06/2013 03:49 PM, David Lamparter wrote: > Hi ospf WG, > > > looking at the Extended LSA draft from the various use cases, I believe > it would be advantageous to repurpose the topmost two bits of the TLV > type to indicate what should happen if the TLV is not supported by a > router. I'm thinking of 3-4 possible handlings: > ... > > > -David >
an impressively deep rathole. Games like that CAN be played (actually, that's why things like MT-ISIS was possible at all) _BUT_ a closed proof is needed that ignoring certain LSAs by certain routers will _NOT_ lead to routing loops (in hop-by-hop routing) since routers hold now for their SPFs different LSDBs. The theory (yes, it's not light bedtime reading) can be found in http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=749255&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel4%2F6063%2F16198%2F00749255.pdf%3Farnumber%3D749255 and that should also enlighten why the concept of 'topology' as in mathematical 'topology' plays such a strong role. I would simplify here however & double Russ's suggestion on wanting a use-case for the goodies proposed first --- tony
<<attachment: prz.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
