Hi Acee, Sorry for the late response.
We will add the following text in the next update “When multiple S-BFD discriminators are advertised how a given discriminator is mapped to a specific use case is out of scope for this document.” Will address the other minor comments in the next rev. Cheers, Manav On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > I have one major comments and I’ve copied Alvaro since he is reviewing the > base S-BFD drafts. > > If an OSPF router advertises multiple BFD discriminators, how do the > other OSPF routers in the OSPF routing domain map the S-BFD discriminators > to the OSPF router IP endpoints and services? > > I also have some minor comments: > > 1) This draft should reference the RFC 4970BIS draft as this is in RFC > EDIT state. > 2) Section 2.1 - The base RFC 4970BIS draft states that unrecognized > TLVs are ignored (as stated in section 3). This is not specific to this > TLV. > 3) Section 2.2 - This says the Opaque ID must be 0. Note that an OSPF > router can now originate multiple OSPF RI LSAs instances. I think this TLV > should be allowed in an OSPF RI LSA subsequent to the first. > 4) Section 2.2 - I don’t think we should advocate sending an empty OSPF > Router Information LSA. I’d remove this case. > > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
