Re: [OSPF] OSPF Multi-Instance and Transport Instance

David Ward <dward@cisco.com> Fri, 27 February 2009 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <dward@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE4A3A657C for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:43:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.387
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.212, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gBwdJOKUEoHS for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:43:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065743A6832 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:43:43 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,278,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="38739081"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2009 20:44:06 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1RKi5HJ019333; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:44:05 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1RKi5uV021902; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:44:05 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.52]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:44:05 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([171.68.225.134]) by xmb-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:44:05 -0500
Message-Id: <159A4DF0-A07B-4AB5-9221-AED32B43593B@cisco.com>
From: David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
To: Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com>
In-Reply-To: <A9450E2E-D05C-465F-AD82-FAEEFDD6134C@redback.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:44:04 -0600
References: <A9450E2E-D05C-465F-AD82-FAEEFDD6134C@redback.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2009 20:44:05.0505 (UTC) FILETIME=[21632710:01C9991C]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1224; t=1235767446; x=1236631446; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dward@cisco.com; z=From:=20David=20Ward=20<dward@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[OSPF]=20OSPF=20Multi-Instance=20and=20 Transport=20Instance |Sender:=20 |To:=20Acee=20Lindem=20<acee@redback.com>; bh=lPKZNC4kAwYd/jgrCTmkj2VmgvbSmK1rlp5GNwCqzqg=; b=Inoi3QPFHq7wq672+ZSXsTxyA8rUnaXDuI4bUYaJL6X8lmuXtIIPApD85Y JKVOQ1SZyOLhXjl6+btVn4/J/F+CgroEnrGQXprRVwgf4kW1ylrDgvZYs2iX qCDW9Vrb7B;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=dward@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Multi-Instance and Transport Instance
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:43:45 -0000

I support this effort (and hope that OSPF catches up with the  
innovation and features in IS-IS.)

-DWard

On Feb 14, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:

> In Minneapolis, there was some interest in making these WG group  
> documents. Additionally, the AD have sponsored this activity given  
> that a solution is being actively pursued in the ISIS WG (though  
> significantly less powerful).
>
> There was one dissenting comment that one could achieve the same  
> results with a single instance given sufficient invention (aka, the  
> "even pigs can fly" argument). I've added text to the transport  
> instance draft as well as mechanisms and text enabling sparse  
> topologies that I believe clearly demonstrates the superiority of  
> this solution. Hence, I like to now ask if there is any further  
> reason not to make these WG documents?
>
> Here are the current versions:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-acee-ospf-multi-instance-02.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-acee-ospf-transport-instance-02.txt
>
> Thanks,
> Acee_______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf