Veerendranatha,
On 28/04/17 09:12 , Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem wrote:
Dear Authors,
1.As per section 3.1 SR- Algorithm TLV ,
"If the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV appears in multiple Router Information LSAs
that have different flooding scopes, the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV in the
Router Information LSA with
the lowest flooding scope SHOULD be used."
“The RI LSA can be advertised at any of the defined opaque flooding
scopes (link, area, or Autonomous System (AS)). For the purpose of
SR-Algorithm TLV advertisement, area scope flooding is required.”
As per first statement, we should use lowest scope (Ex: if the
algorithm TLV is received in AS ,Area and link, then link SR algorithm
is preferred)
link scope is not valid per the paragraph above. The first sentence
talks about RI LSA in general. Second one says what is required for
SR-Alg. TLV.
But second statement indicates we use area scope for algorithm
TLV. These two statements may cause little confusion while implementation.
not really.
First statement resolves the conflict in case the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV
appears in multiple RI LSAs.
Second statement says that area scope is the minimum needed. AS scope
works as well BTW.
As per my understanding, Area scope will be preferred since Node
visibility is at area scope.
correct.
2.Even “SR Local Block Sub-TLV SRMS and Preference Sub-TLV” are top
level TLVs in RI LSA like SR-Algorithm TLV and “SID/Label Range TLV”,
may be it is better to replace “Sub TLV” with TLV.
ack.
regards,
Peter
Thanks and Regards,
Veerendranath
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
