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

Igor Bryskin <IBryskin@advaoptical.com> Mon, 02 March 2009 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <IBryskin@advaoptical.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 2499F3A6BD8 for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:20:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 9Nkuu7ShWHQj for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:20:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.advaoptical.com (mail.advaoptical.com [213.70.90.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155053A6C05 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:20:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from muc-srv-mimesweeper.advaoptical.com (muc-srv-mimesweeper.advaoptical.com [10.200.0.15]) by mail.advaoptical.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n22FL6FY004324 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:21:06 +0100
Received: from muc-srv-exhub.advaoptical.com (muc-srv-exhub.advaoptical.com) by muc-srv-mimesweeper.advaoptical.com (Clearswift SMTPRS 5.2.9) with ESMTP id <T8cd465e03a0ac8000f1388@muc-srv-mimesweeper.advaoptical.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:21:07 +0100
Received: from atl-srv-exgen.atl.advaoptical.com (172.16.5.27) by muc-srv-exhub.advaoptical.com (172.20.1.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:21:06 +0100
Received: from atl-srv-exgen.atl.advaoptical.com ([172.16.5.27]) by atl-srv-exgen.atl.advaoptical.com ([172.16.5.27]) with mapi; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:21:03 -0500
From: Igor Bryskin <IBryskin@advaoptical.com>
To: David Ward <dward@cisco.com>, Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:21:01 -0500
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF Multi-Instance and Transport Instance
Thread-Index: AcmZHCreqgQ2Ge/KSXC9/mhVGKRnnACLf5Tg
Message-ID: <052C67B4ED558D41BBDEA7CA9FC6DCDC128524C8F1@atl-srv-exgen.atl.advaoptical.com>
References: <A9450E2E-D05C-465F-AD82-FAEEFDD6134C@redback.com> <159A4DF0-A07B-4AB5-9221-AED32B43593B@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <159A4DF0-A07B-4AB5-9221-AED32B43593B@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:20:53 -0000

I support this effort, because this is very important for advanced Traffic Engineering architectures. 

Igor Bryskin

-----Original Message-----
From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Ward
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 3:44 PM
To: Acee Lindem
Cc: OSPF List
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Multi-Instance and Transport Instance

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

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf