On 13 December 2012 21:56, Rob Shakir <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems to me that we need deterministic behaviour in order to allow > operators to clearly consider this within such policies (or to know that > other protocol/signalling mechanisms are required), and to ensure > inter-operability. I don't see a clear reason why Hannes' suggestions do not > go at least some way to providing this. In the vast majority of deployments I > have seen, a consistent router ID is used for intra-domain, inter-node > session termination and protocol identifier. This is more common (imho) than > the highest /32 being the most suitable address.
In our ~1500 or so flat L2 ISIS network TLV 132 is always correct for tLDP, mixed collection of various IOS and JunOS devices. However I know people who run unlabeled INET4 in loop0 and labeled VPNv4 for loop1 and desirable LDP is loop1. I would guess TLV 132 is still loop0 for these people, it's probably their router-id as well. No matter what you specify it, some people will be unhappy. But I wonder if there any production network where TLV 132 would fail, after allowing it in control-plane protection? (Also hell with tLDP, give me global label TLV in ISIS, and we get rLFA without any LDP, not even link LDP) -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
