Re: [OSPF] status of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi Shishio,

I just looked at the expired draft and it doesn't include any discussion of the R-bit. 

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-00.txt

Can you put that in the next revision? 

Thanks,
Acee

On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:02 PM, Shishio Tsuchiya wrote:

> Acee
> Thank you for reply.
> 2012/03/15 6:28), Acee Lindem wrote:
>> [Speaking as a WG member]
>> 
>> Hi Shishio,
>> 
>> I guess I didn't read this close enough the first time.
>> 
>> On Feb 28, 2012, at 2:15 AM, Shishio Tsuchiya wrote:
>> 
>>> Acee
>>> Thank you for information.
>>> But a lot of vendors already supported the high link metric to announce as stub.
>>> Therefore I think the draft should describe both of high link metric and R-bit.
>>> What do you think if the author add only one or two sentence which mentioned exist of R-bit to current internet draft?
>> 
>> Due to its simplicity, I think the R-bit should be the preferred option. 
>> Since all OSPFv3 implementations should support the R-bit, there are no compatibility issues. Does everyone agree?
> 
> Yes,I strong agree that OSPFv3 should support the R-bit.
> It's described on rfc5340.
> My draft described two mode R-bit and high link metric.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shishio-ospf-ospfv3-stub
> 
> I thought Alvaro's the draft should describe only high link metric.
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/slides/ospf-2.pdf
> 
>> 
>> The only value I can see in using the high-link metric is that it allows the existing implementations you cite to say they conform this draft.  
>> Is that worth having two mechanisms?
> 
> I could not find any difference essentially in 2 modes when I wrote the draft and discuss about this topic.
> But merit of high-link metric are
> -easy to implementation : most of vendor already supported this mode.
> -same operation OSPFv2 and OSPFv3: the operator needs to check metric value.(do not need to know new bit)
> 
> I agree R-bit should be preferred option, but I think the draft should describe high-link metric also.
> 
> Regards,
> -Shishio
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> -Shishio
>>> 
>>> (2012/02/28 7:23), Acee Lindem wrote:
>>>> Hi Shishio,
>>>> If I remember correctly, there was discussion as to whether to just use the R-bit rather than the high link metric for OSPFv3. Given the goals of the draft, I'd be in favor of this change.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Acee
>>>> On Feb 24, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Shishio Tsuchiya wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> After this draft be WG documents,it expired.
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Was there any objection? or just maintenance issue?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> -Shishio
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OSPF mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>