Re: [OSPF] WG Last Call for Support of address families in OSPFv3 - draft-ietf-ospf-af-alt-07.txt

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

The WG last call has ended. We issue a new version addressing Dave's  
comments once we've agreed on the updated text among the document  
authors.
Thanks,
Acee
On Mar 6, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> We'll provided an updated version of the draft addressing your  
> comments. We need to discuss among the authors.
>
> On Feb 25, 2009, at 2:23 PM, David Ward wrote:
>
>> Acee and OSPF'ers -
>>
>> A few comments:
>>
>> 0) It's unclear what happens if the value of the instance_id  
>> (which has semantics of AF/SAF) and the prefix options bits in  
>> 2.2.2 don't match. What happens in this failure case and what  
>> should win?
>> 	a) in addition, what happens if an instance_id >= 128 is received?
>>
>> 1) The draft may want to call out a few more details that are in  
>> 5340 that the instance_id is per link and a few of the rules in 5340.
>
> I agree we need to clarify these cases. I wish the original OSPFv3  
> RFC hadn't included any bits without specification of how they are  
> going to be used.
>
>>
>> 2) It isn't clear if there are or should be rules for leaking  
>> routes between instances. For example:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason- 
>> routing-ospf-07.txt
>>
>> requires that leaking and policy is required. Given that, it seems  
>> you have to have some general rules and failure conditions. For  
>> example, leaking between instances of the same AF could be allowed  
>> and they are to be imported as ASE ...
>
> I don't think this should be specified other than the obvious rule  
> that the any imported routes should be from the same address  
> family. Note that the above draft is an experimental draft and its  
> utility remains to be proven.
>
>
>>
>> <As an aside I've cc'ed the CCAMP WG chairs to be aware of this  
>> draft and WG LC>
>>
>> 3) Do you want to set aside a small set of instance_ids for non- 
>> routing information at this time? Given you have taken on the  
>> work, and you know it is coming maybe it makes sense now?
>
> I'll discuss with other authors. The space is very small (256 code  
> points), so we have be careful we don't restrict this too much.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>>
>> I have other comments but, this is a start.
>>
>> -DWard
>>
>> On Feb 25, 2009, at 5:13 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>>
>>> This starts the Working Group Last Call for the subject document.  
>>> The target status is proposed standard.
>>> The WG Last Call will start today and end March 12th at 12:00 AM  
>>> EDT.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>