[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [OSPF] draft-venkata-ospf-dynamic-hostname-02.txt

Hi Anton,

Great questions. Some of them we already thought but deferred for WG consensus.
Answers inline.

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Anton Smirnov <asmirnov at cisco.com> wrote:
   Hi all,
   have a comment on this draft (OK, it's not WG document yet but hope
that's not a problem).
   The document doesn't stipulate that Dynamic Hostname TLV can be
present at most once.

Yes. I think it is better to keep it simple by mandating one Dynamic hostname TLV per originator.
This saves unnecessary flooding and network bandwidth.
 
Also, if implementation chooses to announce both
AS and area scope RI LSA then it is not clear if it is allowed to
announce different names.

Again, one TLV per originator. If a router is originating at least one AS scope LSA
(for example, an ASBR originating AS external LSAs) then it should generate AS scope
Dynamic hostname TLV. Otherwise it should originate area scope TLV.
 


   I personally would prefer 1:1 mapping between ID and router's name
to be required but some people might disagree with me. Either way
document should specify if multiple names are allowed or not.

We will include some wording on these in the next revision of the draft.
 

   If we are to send text string then document should specify what
exactly is understood by 'text'. Is it ASCII or UTF-8 encoding? Are
symbols like 0x1 or 0xAF allowed?

We discussed and deferred this for WG consensus.
I prefer ASCII text unless there is a strong reason for UTF-8 or UNICODE.

Thanks for the review.

Venkata.
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf