Thanks Les for explanation and agreed. Thanks
Gyan On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 5:43 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote: > Gyan – > > > > While I don’t speak for Ketan, in regards to: > > > > > > > > Also maybe mention of OSPF multi instance RFC 6549 and any caveats related > to support of reverse metric. > > > > KT> I am not sure how OSPF multi-instance has any bearing on this > specification. Please let me know if I am missing something. > > > > Gyan> RFC 8500 had section 3.2 Multi-topology ISIS support on P2P > links so was wondering if multi instance with ospf may have any special > considerations just in case to check. > > > > *[LES:] You are confusing two different functionalities.* > > *IS-IS Multi-Topology (RFC 5120) defines how a single instance of the > protocol supports multiple topologies.* > > *There is one adjacency which supports as many topologies as are shared > between the two neighbors.* > > *Topology specific advertisements for neighbors (TLV 222) are sent by the > single instance.* > > *The language in RFC 8500 indicates that the reverse metric sent in hellos > applies equally to all topology specific advertisements. * > > > > * RFC 6549 is quite different. It defines how to support multiple > instances on a single interface – each with an instance specific adjacency.* > > * The comparable functionality in IS-IS would be RFC 8202.* > > * I agree w Ketan that there is no reason to discuss multi-instance > here as (unlike MT) instance specific hellos are used.* > > > > * HTH.* > > > > * Les* > > > > > > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
