?? draft-ietf-ospf-isis-flood.opt-01.txt : Status
Erblichs <erblichs@EARTHLINK.NET> Wed, 10 September 2003 08:24 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 EAA22438 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 04:24:09 -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 <9.00B67F69@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 4:24:12 -0400
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 54646976 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 04:24:11 -0400
Received: from 207.217.120.62 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 04:24:11 -0400
Received: from user-38lc0l5.dialup.mindspring.com ([209.86.2.165] helo=earthlink.net) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19x0Go-00077P-00 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:24:10 -0700
X-Sender: "Erblichs" <@smtp.earthlink.net> (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-gatewaynet (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20030731211437.48158.qmail@web13503.mail.yahoo.com> <3F298E33.5010100@redback.com> <005301c37748$908baf50$938a6e0a@liuyu18957n>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3F5ED54C.8700754F@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:39:56 -0700
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Erblichs <erblichs@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: ?? draft-ietf-ospf-isis-flood.opt-01.txt : Status
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Group,
This draft was specifing nbr flooding vs interface
flooding and was interested to know whether anyone
was aware of what was meant by the phrase:
"Multiaccess interfaces need special treatmeant"
in the 3.1 Introduction section.
By my read, if the interface was a BMA or a NBMA, then
you would have needed "neighbor flooding active/passive"
type configs.
I have been asked to investigate some of its features, but
believe that this draft never was pushed to RFC. Am I
right and did anyone implement these features.
Mitchell Erblich
Sr Software Engineer
----------
- ASBR reachable via multiple areas Igor Miroshnik
- Re: ASBR reachable via multiple areas Acee Lindem
- Re: ASBR reachable via multiple areas ROB PATH
- Re: ASBR reachable via multiple areas Acee Lindem
- Inter-area routes reachable via multiple areas Liu Yu
- ?? draft-ietf-ospf-isis-flood.opt-01.txt : Status Erblichs
- Age increment on flooding Felix Lin
- Re: Age increment on flooding Erblichs
- Re: Age increment on flooding Acee Lindem