Sorry, I was looking at an earlier version of the draft. I'm not sure why
they decided to change that section.

Bart Batsleer WX22 54174 <bart.batsleerALCATEL.BE> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Section 2.4.2 in edition 05:
>
> "The Link Type and Link ID sub-TLVs are mandatory.... All other sub-TLVs
> defined here may occur at most once."
>
> Out of this I concluded that sub-tlv 3-9 are optionally present.
>
> Regards,
> Bart
>
> Curtis Call wrote:
>
> > See section 2.4.2:
> >
> > Each sub-TLV may occur only once. Unrecognized types are ignored.
> > All of the defined sub-TLVs are mandatory (though future sub-TLVs may
> > not necessarily be mandatory.)
> >
> > So you should never encounter the situation you described. (A TE LSA
minus
> > the metric sub-TLV).
>
> >
> >
> > Bart Batsleer <bart.batsleerALCATEL.BE> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I have 2 questions on the draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-05
> > >
> > > 1) In case the traffic engineering metric sub-tlv is not present in the
> > link
> > > tlv, does the traffic engineering SPF calculation have to rely on the
> > > standard OSPF link metric ?
> > >
> > > 2) The behaviour is stated in the corresponding isis draft, is there a
> > > reason why this is not stated in the OSPF draft ?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > Bart

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]