Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-Object
RFC 4561
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) Yes
(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) No Objection
(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection
(based on Gen-ART review by John Loughney) Section 3 says: In this document, we define the following new flag: Node-id: 0x20 There seems to be no registry for this flag space, and backtracking to RFC 4090 and 3209 suggests that there are lots of flag valuess in RSVP-TE with no registry. There's surely a risk of mistakes as a result. There are boilerplate nits that the RFC Editor will catch.
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection
The document says:
A node MUST use
the same address consistently. Once an address is used in RRO's
IPv4 or IPv6 subobject, it SHOULD always be used for the
lifetime of the LSP.
This MUST doesn't seem like an RFC 2119 MUST; it seems like operational
advice. It is also not entirely clear what the scope of consistency is.
Clearly it my have both v4 anv v6 addresses; may it use different node-ids
for the different address families? Or is this intended to apply only
for the lifetime of an LSP?