Re: [OSPF] OSPF Topology Transparent Zone (TTZ) Next Steps

"Russ White" <> Sat, 06 July 2013 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A871121F9B5C for <>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 13:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.29
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cu6b7wPPmLZR for <>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 13:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDFB21F9BCA for <>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 13:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=USCSWHITER10L1C) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <>) id 1UvZ5p-00005n-Ja; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 13:28:29 -0700
From: "Russ White" <>
To: "'Acee Lindem'" <>, "'OSPF List'" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 16:28:38 -0400
Message-ID: <002201ce7a87$6648e530$32daaf90$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQJASbXjpHZnDaWjys0nPldLDGuuhZh0eshw
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Seems clean. You should still use an Antivirus Scanner
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Topology Transparent Zone (TTZ) Next Steps
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 20:28:39 -0000

> As WG chair, I'd like to initiate a discussion on this technology. We've
had it
> presented at the last couple IETFs and there are varying opinions on its
> usefulness.

In general, I think this is useful. I can think of specific situations where
it would be nice/would have been nice to have. In fact, a few of us went
some ways towards designing just such a system (using different mechanisms)
when we were deep into the MANET/OSPF space, but never released,
implemented, etc., the idea.

I would put my vote into making this a WG doc and moving it forward.