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

Uma Chunduri <> Tue, 26 August 2014 07:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06AA21A0A92 for <>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jrsy_u-o0Uf6 for <>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A65E11A0864 for <>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-46-53fbda256913
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F2.E9.25146.52ADBF35; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:51:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:03:30 -0400
From: Uma Chunduri <>
To: Karsten Thomann <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
Thread-Index: AQHPwJf53JQiCi1AXEC/xTWZo3ZpdpviFtYAgABewBA=
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:03:30 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <234836831.19CZc6qLhu@linne>
In-Reply-To: <234836831.19CZc6qLhu@linne>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F36243Beusaamb105erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpkkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonQVf11u9gg9a/+hbPD/FabLl1lMmi 5d49dgdmjyVLfjJ5PDx4iN3jy+XPbAHMUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZ85c0shZsqq54f9CugfFC XhcjJ4eEgInE7PaV7BC2mMSFe+vZuhi5OIQEjjJK/No6FcpZzijR3rIXrIpNQE/i49SfYLaI QJDEpm9HWEBsZoFsiZb5K8BsYQFfid2brzNC1ARIPD98Hsq2krhz7hUriM0ioCqx6sY0sDm8 QPXf1nSBxYUEUiTu/14BFucU0JS4fn4KM4jNCHTd91NrmCB2iUvcejKfCeJqAYkle84zQ9ii Ei8f/2OFsJUkJi09xwpRny/xYm8DK8QuQYmTM5+wTGAUnYVk1CwkZbOQlEHEdSQW7P7EBmFr Syxb+JoZxj5z4DETsvgCRvZVjBylxalluelGhpsYgXF2TILNcQfjgk+WhxgFOBiVeHgVOH8H C7EmlhVX5h5ilOZgURLn1ayeFywkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWhRfVJqTWnyIkYmDU6qBcdXW577cefu1 Upf9XL1H78LFSxntKmfTJ20Xej7rg2omw+HZ3uUuEyZ/c+Ct2CSWKj5xlr98POe1X3+SV7k3 sHJcsjEyabi3Ik0gc4Zr/lZRmYywoHjWCbLTfK+olfw5bt9f/n/ixLp9T2/nzS+qTPjmrmbi J+lgKPzD6+j+fdoXzZd09v9XV2Ipzkg01GIuKk4EAGxSPrSUAgAA
Cc: "" <>
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: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:03:37 -0000

Dear  Abhay, Karsten,

Thanks for the comments.

My quick answers:
For -

1.       As Karsten said we discussed this offline and agreed that it's applicable to IPv4 AFs possible through RFC 5838. Thx.

2.       Agree. We will correct this.

Uma C.

From: OSPF [] On Behalf Of Karsten Thomann
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address

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<>