Re: OSPF sham link
Acee Lindem <acee@CISCO.COM> Fri, 30 September 2005 17:31 UTC
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ELOjR-0004JY-Rl for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:37 -0400
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 NAA22152 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com (209.119.0.2) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <9.01100313@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:34 -0400
Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 86920071 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:32 -0400
Received: from 171.71.176.70 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:32 -0400
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2005 10:31:32 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,162,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="662957833:sNHT24817216"
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j8UHUo5U003640 for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:28 -0400
Received: from [10.82.242.37] ([10.82.242.37]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:28 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <062B922B6EC55149B5A267ECE78E5D440A250706@photon.jnpr.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2005 17:31:28.0182 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9FB1D60:01C5C5E4]
Message-ID: <433D766F.4010501@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:27 -0400
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Acee Lindem <acee@CISCO.COM>
Subject: Re: OSPF sham link
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
In-Reply-To: <062B922B6EC55149B5A267ECE78E5D440A250706@photon.jnpr.net>
Precedence: list
List-Help: <http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=OSPF>, <mailto:LISTSERV@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM?body=INFO+OSPF>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:OSPF-unsubscribe-request@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:OSPF-subscribe-request@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
List-Owner: <mailto:OSPF-request@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
List-Archive: <http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=OSPF>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Kalyan Bade wrote: >Acee, > > > >>I recently commented on that this should be clarified in the draft. >> >> >The > > >>reason the sham endpoint should >>not be redistributed or advertised in OSPF is that sham link endpoint >>reachability >>is used to determine whether or not sham link is up. If the sham link >>endpoint is advertised in OSPF >>the sham link would provide a viable path and greatly complicate this >>determination. >> >> > >Thanks for the response. I understand what you are saying, but isn't a >purely implementation thing? If we do this, we end up loosing >connectivity to the loopback from other routers. This might be not >desirable in some scenarios. Aren't we restricting something just >because implementations cannot deal with it? Let me know your thoughts. > > <speaking as a WG member who has reviewed draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547-04.txt several times> Hi Kalyan, This draft broke new ground since it documented specific mechanisms for both protocol redistribution and protocol interaction. Prior to the draft, these topics were pretty much left to the implemenations (at least in the case of OSPF). In order to ensure interoperability, these topics needed to be documented. Like any problem, there are multiple ways in solve it and different tradeoffs that can be made. Given the number of reviews and last calls on the draft, I'd say there would need to be a pretty compelling reason in order to change this now. Thanks, Acee >Thanks, >Kalyan. > > >
- OSPF sham link Kalyan Bade
- Re: OSPF sham link Acee Lindem
- Re: OSPF sham link Kalyan Bade
- Re: OSPF sham link Padma Pillay-Esnault
- Re: OSPF sham link Acee Lindem
- Re: OSPF sham link Quaizar Vohra
- Re: OSPF sham link Peter Psenak
- Re: OSPF sham link Quaizar Vohra
- Re: OSPF sham link Peter Psenak
- Re: OSPF sham link Quaizar Vohra
- Re: OSPF sham link Acee Lindem