Re: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3?

Abhay Roy <akr@cisco.com> Mon, 25 August 2014 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <akr@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367421A026F for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OhKEn5M94w1a for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A10221A0222 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1280; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1408993471; x=1410203071; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gIUN2QDc7Fl8ar31+aSvrbeDdGLBwN6debCoirzbmc0=; b=WHMV3jYRxG5hPG4rUxglEk5sbh6JavV6mIOW4uW3uuK0aD5Pq6n5xqOY lRBA+ffJNtTLZ+/YWMU047isSO4lrf/P8D2ji5uZvGbxCg5wA3RC8kClf YtoiWEwHgS6RVk8kXjZrCou6EAJlEI64h1GUgV67FKdg5+J06vnjTUZh6 E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjsLAL6H+1OtJV2U/2dsb2JhbABagw1TV68vAQEBAQUBbgGcKAqHTQGBIxZ3hAQBAQQBAQE1NgoRCxgJFg8JAwIBAgEVMAYNBgIBAYg+Db9zEwSFfIlXhEwBBIsiii2GeocvjV2Dfh0vgk8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,398,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="72193704"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2014 19:04:31 +0000
Received: from [10.154.213.44] ([10.154.213.44]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7PJ4UCp018797 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:04:30 GMT
Message-ID: <53FB88C5.4010008@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:04:37 -0700
From: Abhay Roy <akr@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
References: <BF6E0BD839774345977891C597F8B50C68D51D@eusaamb109.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <BF6E0BD839774345977891C597F8B50C68D51D@eusaamb109.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/6GPwJ_I1x2n9Jc6hT-A4z0gHD3w
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3?
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:04:33 -0000

We have strong support from all the authors to accept this work ;-)

Can a few non-authors also chime in with their thoughts/support?

Speaking as a WG member, I support this work because it also fixes the 
Virtual Link limitation we left unsupported in RFC5838 for IPv4 Unicast AF.

Regards,
-Abhay

On 7/22/14, 5:53 PM, Ing-Wher Chen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to ask if the working group would adopt and help improve and refine
> the following draft:
>
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3/>
>
> This document describes a mechanism to transport OSPfv3 over IPv4.
> The mechanism allows devices to migrate to OSPFv3 first, which would help
> with transition to IPv6 later.
>
> The latest -01 version addresses an earlier question by including
> an IPv4-only use case in which deployed devices cannot communicate
> in IPv6 but would benefit from using the mechanism proposed in this draft
> to transition to OSPFv3 for now.  Until all devices can communicate using IPv6,
> consolidating to OSPFv3 can still reduce operational complexity and cost.
>
> Thanks,
> Helen
>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf