On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 09:24:23AM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote: | Hi Tony, | | please see inline: | | On 9/3/14 18:13 , A. Przygienda wrote: | >Hey Acee, | >>>>b) section 2. | >>>> | >>>>It may be well writing a sentence or two what should happen if an OSPFv2 | >>>>Extended Prefix Opaque LSA changes its flooding scope (i.e. 9-11 | >>>>changes) and what should happen if the same prefix appears in two | >>>>different flooding scopes with different information (ignore prefix in | >>>>both, prefer local scope info ? [i.e. ignore wider scope]). Leaving it | >>>>open may lead to different treatement per router and surprising effects | >>>as far as the information in the two LSAs are the same, having the prefix in two LSAs with different flooding scopes is not a problem - happens today with regular LSAs.) The problem would be if the content of TLVs associated with the prefix is controversial, in which case it would be a defect on the originator side. | >>This is another case where the segment routing mapping server requirement makes this more complicated. I think the guidance for the case should be to give preference to the information in the LSA with area flooding scope. | >agree. preferring area (or in extreme case link scope ?) is simplest | >resolution of the issue. Agree with Acee here. | > | >It's also wise to add 'if the same extended prefix TLV (i.e. for same | >prefix) is seen twice in same opaque LSA only use the first and force | >people to put all sub-tlvs into a single tlv. | | it's kind of obvious, but we can add a text to be sure. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
only for the educated eye :-) _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
