Re: OSPF Capabilities Draft
Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM> Mon, 02 June 2003 14:24 UTC
Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09661 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:24:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <6.009F4C85@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:24:10 -0400
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 44405385 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:24:08 -0400
Received: from 24.93.67.82 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:24:07 -0400
Received: from redback.com (rdu162-235-026.nc.rr.com [24.162.235.26]) by ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h52EIhd2023594 for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:18:43 -0400 (EDT)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3ED4495F.4050105@redback.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3EDB5D5C.7040202@redback.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 10:21:16 -0400
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM>
Subject: Re: OSPF Capabilities Draft
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I received one comment from Peter Psenack on this draft. A router with attached stub or NSSA areas should also originate an area scoped capability LSAs for these area when the domain wide flooding option is selected. I think this is a good idea.and will add it as we more forward. Any more discussion? Thanks, Acee Acee Lindem wrote: > The draft draft-raggarwal-igp-cap-0x.txt has been discussed at the > last three IETFs. At the last two IETFs, there was mild support and > we agreed to take the discussion to the OSPF WG list. In order to remove > one of the barriers to making this draft a WG document, I have split out > the OSPF specific portion into a separate draft. Rahul has done the same > for ISIS. > > <Speaking as a WG Member> > > I beleive the time has come to accept this as a WG document. The > described mechanism is consistent with other OSPF features and is > backward compatible. All the OSPF options been have been allocated and > new proposal will be able to make use of this mechanism without > solving the option bit problem. One example is > draft-vasseur-mpls-ospf-te-cap-00.txt. > > </Speaking as a WG Member> > > Link to draft below: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lindem-ospf-cap-00.txt > > Further discussion? Any opposition to accepting this draft as a WG > document? > > Thanks, > -- > Acee > -- Acee
- OSPF Capabilities Draft Acee Lindem
- Re: OSPF Capabilities Draft Acee Lindem
- Re: OSPF Capabilities Draft Manral, Vishwas
- Re: OSPF Capabilities Draft Peter Psenak
- Re: OSPF Capabilities Draft Acee Lindem