Hi Julien, On 2/23/16, 4:08 AM, "Julien Meuric" <julien.meu...@orange.com> wrote:
>Hi Acee, > >Feb. 20, 2016 - a...@cisco.com: >> Hi Julien, > >[snip] > >>>>> What is more, I really think that the current wording is too loose >>>>>in >>>>> "it is expected that the information in these LSA [sic] would be >>>>> identical". I do not see the drawback of having full alignment of >>>>> values >>>>> in case of duplication, but I see the operational risk of nightmare >>>>>in >>>>> case they are not. As a result, I suggest to rephrase into: "If the >>>>> same >>>>> link attribute is advertised in both LSAs, the information in these >>>>> LSAs >>>>> MUST be identical." >>>> >>>> given the OSPF protocol operation above can not be guaranteed. LSAs >>>> arrive asynchronously and there can be intervals during which the >>>> consistency of the information between two different LSAs can not be >>>> guaranteed. >>> >>> [JM] We fully agree on that. To make sure this is not creating an >>> ambiguity, you may rephrase as: >>> "If the same link attribute is advertised in both LSAs, the information >>> packed in these LSAs by advertising routers MUST be identical." >> >> Are we sure on this? Today we can have an OSPF metric that is >>independent >> of the OSPF TE Metric - why wouldn’t we want the same flexibility with >> SRLG? > >[JM] From my perspective, I concur. Metrics are purely administrative >parameters: it makes sense to allow operators to use different routing >decision between SPF and TE. Conversely, SRLGs are supposed to abstract >the underlying infrastructure to enable diverse routing: this gives a >clear semantic on the SRLG link parameter. I do not see any value in >using two different infrastructure descriptions, while I see some risk >of operational mess in case one forget to update one of the parameter >sets. >I also believe that if double SRLG capability had been an operator's >requirement, we would have started from there and confronted that to >both IGPs. This is a different motivation here. I agree that I don’t really see a requirement for separate TE and IP SRLGs. However, I’m not sure this is something that the protocol. Perhaps this falls into the category of “RECOMMENDED”. We will discuss amongst the authors once Peter returns from vacation. Acee > >Cheers, > >Julien > > >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >[snip] _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
