Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address

Karsten Thomann <> Mon, 25 August 2014 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1904C1A037E for <>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.219
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30hpt_LbeXBY for <>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C3E71A0379 for <>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linne.localnet ( by linfreserv.linfre (Axigen) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA id 125D5E; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:18:23 +0200
From: Karsten Thomann <>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:21:08 +0200
Message-ID: <234836831.19CZc6qLhu@linne>
User-Agent: KMail/4.10.4 (Windows/6.1; KDE/4.10.4; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="nextPart1538080.SMMbQ5fZYc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-AXIGEN-DK-Result: No records
DomainKey-Status: no signature
X-AxigenSpam-Level: 6
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:18:37 -0000

About your comments:
1. I've raised that question already june 8th onlist, but the discussion ended off list waiting for an 
answer from a co-author

2. Will check it tomorrow with some more time

I support making it a WG document, but would also like to get 1. clarified before WG adoption, but 
thats up to the WG consensus


Am Montag, 25. August 2014, 12:08:32 schrieb Abhay Roy:

This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiring it.. 

Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document. 


On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:

[speaking as WG member]

Two comments..

1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".     I believe, this should also be 
applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF's 

2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personally don't see any real 
use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we have mechanisms to generate routable IP 
address for those scopes already. So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be 
"MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns with that? 


OSPF mailing list[1][2]