Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG at IETF 85 - It Ain't Over till the Fat LSA MAXAGE's
"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Fri, 05 October 2012 18:18 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061D221F8570 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 11:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a+hARpDTM060 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 11:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CEEB21F8438 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 11:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3541; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1349461105; x=1350670705; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=ytCZZTOtQUFGhNNaky2mgOtIJkLKyAbsIXdx8J1mmgw=; b=ShT3YXzFQ42B0UqpVlq8N5Mf1lBB1zrtVRoxoSfxIfSRPanq+PbStPlJ vwY5mrrzXwDijLfzdT/jH13bg5OU5HjRDZqfPuLnxPAa5eTEAycS/7JPM jmhbqe+Hj4nYBjTVfnEzFEnIZdn0woPR3O39yJXxKFn01/5jTvTTPjSI/ 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EALQjb1CtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABFgku8VYEIgiIBBBIBZhIBCAQeHTkUEQEBBA4FCBMHh2OYZaATkGdgA6QwgWmCbYIX
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.80,541,1344211200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="125772580"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Oct 2012 18:18:22 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q95IIMuK004124 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Oct 2012 18:18:22 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.153]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 13:18:21 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF WG at IETF 85 - It Ain't Over till the Fat LSA MAXAGE's
Thread-Index: Ac2i+9SytUVQBCP1Q/2wE5wasqebqQAMllYA
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:18:21 +0000
Message-ID: <BBD66FD99311804F80324E8139B3C94EA594C5@xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A313FEA9-5AA1-4885-8C2C-593DF75791A3@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.82.236.164]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19242.001
x-tm-as-result: No--33.786000-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBD66FD99311804F80324E8139B3C94EA594C5xmbalnx15ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG at IETF 85 - It Ain't Over till the Fat LSA MAXAGE's
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:18:26 -0000
Acee: Hi! I unfortunately won't we able to stay the whole week, so I wanted to give a short opinion on your comment below. On 10/5/12 9:17 AM, "Acee Lindem" <acee.lindem@ericsson.com<mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com>> wrote: If time allows, I'd like to lead a general discussion on the direction the WG wishes to take with respect to scaling. We have the TTZ draft on table but some, including myself, are not convinced this is the right direction to improve OSPF scaling. IMHO, starting form a potential solution and backing up to a problem that (maybe) needs to be solved is the wrong approach. Instead, the discussion should be around what problem(s) we want/need to solve. Having a clear description of the requirements will allow us to figure out whether TTZ (or any other proposal) fits the bill, or not. Thanks! Alvaro.
- [OSPF] OSPF WG at IETF 85 - It Ain't Over till th… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG at IETF 85 - It Ain't Over til… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG at IETF 85 - It Ain't Over til… Acee Lindem