[OSPF] 答复: Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Wed, 27 August 2014 05:08 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@huawei.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 5B5891A03D0 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.082
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.082 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 w4l49Dildpok for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0992C1A031D for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BLU85129; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:08:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:08:11 +0100
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.184]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:08:06 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: Abhay Roy <akr@cisco.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
Thread-Index: AQHPwJgKTjboO7R6KUCEvKIVbx0ohZvj6D9m
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:08:06 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D082477E4@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com>,<53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.193.34.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D082477E4nkgeml506mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/D-iNGrhOPaIUj5T9bx-1VXBDs1I
Subject: [OSPF] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFBvbGwgZm9yIFdHIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRy?= =?gb2312?b?YWZ0LXh1LW9zcGYtcm91dGFibGUtaXAtYWRkcmVzcw==?=
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: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:08:17 -0000

Support.



Best Regards,

Robin





________________________________
发件人: OSPF [ospf-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Abhay Roy [akr@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2014年8月26日 3:08
收件人: ospf@ietf.org
主题: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address

This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiring it..

Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document.

Regards,
-Abhay

On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:
[speaking as WG member]

Two comments..

1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".
    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF's

2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personally don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns with that?

Regards,
-Abhay



_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org<mailto:OSPF@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf