Hi Jeff,
Following the WG session yesterday, I'm glad to (lately) join the
thread. Please, see my comments below as [JM].
Oct. 26, 2015 - [email protected]:
Hi,
No hats
I'm familiar with at least 2 implementations which have this issue, this draft
solves real problem.
Regards,
Jeff
[JM] Then you may consider patching them to do parameter duplication on
the receiver side, not on the wire and/or the emitter configuration...
Do you imagine operational people tearing hair out while trying to guess
if they need to configure SRLGs in here, there or both? All the more as
two places would multiply configuration discrepancies.
In the I-D, the beginning and the end of section 3.1 provide a good summary:
- "One approach for advertising link attributes is to _continue_ to use
TE Opaque LSA"
- advantages: "no additional standardization requirement", "link
attributes are only advertised once".
I cannot agree more on these.
In other words, some new use cases, not matching the original one, do
not justify to allocate new code points to the same information (cf.
IS-IS non-issue). In the IETF, uses cases aim at scoping protocol work,
they aren't made to limit protocol future uses.
Cheers,
Julien
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
