Given that the authors really don't want to leave a legacy of complexity with
the backward compatibility cases. I think we are going to reduce the
compatibility cases to:
ExtendedLSASupport
This is an enumeration type indicating the extent to which the
OSPFv3 instance supports the TLV format described herein for
Extended LSAs. The valid value for the enumeration are:
* None - Non-extended LSAs will not be originated or used in the
SPF calculation.
* Normal - Extended LSAs will be originated and adjacencies will
not be formed with OSPFv3 routers not supporting this
specification.
* MixedMode - Both extended and non-extended LSAs will be
originated. OSPFv3 adjacencies will be formed with OSPFv3
routers not supporting this specification. The non-extended
LSAs are used for the SPF computation.
One thing that occurred to me is that it might be useful to migrate a single
area. In this case, one would allow the following modes:
AreaExtendedLSASupport
This is an enumeration type indicating the extent to which the
OSPFv3 area supports the TLV format described herein for
Extended LSAs. The valid value for the enumeration are:
* None - Non-extended LSAs will not be originated or used in the
SPF calculation.
* Normal – Area and link-local scoped Extended LSAs will be originated and
adjacencies will not be formed with OSPFv3 routers in the area not supporting
this Extended LSAs. AS scoped LSAs will be originated as non-extended LSAs.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
