Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 option bit
"Santosh P K" <sanpk316@gmail.com> Wed, 03 October 2007 09:41 UTC
Return-path: <ospf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id0j2-0002Se-C3; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:41:04 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id0iy-0002Em-Be for ospf@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:41:01 -0400
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id0is-0006Jx-23 for ospf@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:41:00 -0400
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u2so253674uge for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=cVBX5X5xJn+T8iKU9JWix5gDUzc6abxXsdgYefa5p4k=; b=AanGHcwXdDJPeNktKmmmMSdSfKiTLODWzxRBf4rpz4mLwiKBDruf18JJtzLfz0yJCHKJkEiOBudn+q79bQ8zEnXO3Avo3h1Vrb0bQZLKudjvhmWpo49NKg2hjCYteqvaGDx1ooza9DV4Mj2HhOY0Ptk+T3H3he9KQYekkYK3U58=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=oxnetJIBKyViX0/ODjewv05zdF4D2mG687XbGEhE40kH2G+gVZ7JctCvf/ODQDPiUyTeMfPJNepR3XEE/ObvV2BIIc0Hlv/WnOLc51JJdYEDpU844c4m0XgctFqa2mjeAX7DBhqTTEMTCosWybBjQ9CP1vsJDkRm33n5U5nPB+c=
Received: by 10.67.115.2 with SMTP id s2mr246512ugm.1191404442364; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.67.88.1 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 02:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <a0d41f8e0710030240h12e95eber7e9b57a54fb6be60@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:10:42 +0530
From: Santosh P K <sanpk316@gmail.com>
To: Anton Smirnov <asmirnov@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 option bit
In-Reply-To: <470360B4.1020108@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <a0d41f8e0710030153u572e1a8ci1c00923b102a7a5@mail.gmail.com> <470360B4.1020108@cisco.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 32b73d73e8047ed17386f9799119ce43
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org
Consider for implementation. On 10/3/07, Anton Smirnov <asmirnov@cisco.com> wrote: > > its reserved. Out of all these three which one shall i consider. > > Consider exactly for which purpose? Education, implementation, new > standard proposal? The answer depends. > > EA (External Attribute) never took off the ground, you can disregard it. > LLS is in Experimental state now, not Standards track, that's the reason > why it is not listed in IANA assignment. > > Thanks, > > Anton > > > > Santosh P K wrote: > > Hi All, > > I was going through the option bits of OSPFv2. I have couple of > > doubts on this please clarify. > > > > > > In RFC 2328 in A.2 it says > > +----------------------------------------------+ > > | * | * | DC | EA | N/P | MC | E | * | > > +----------------------------------------------+ > > That is > > Value Description > > ------ ---------------- > > 0x01 Reserved > > 0x02 E-bit > > 0x04 MC-bit > > 0x08 N/P-bit > > 0x10 EA > > 0x20 DC-bit > > 0x40 Reserved > > 0x80 Reserved > > > > > > > > In RFC 4813 OSPF Link-Local Signaling sec 2.1 it says > > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > > | * | O | DC| L |N/P| MC| E | * | > > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-+-+ > > > > That is > > Value Description > > ------ ---------------- > > 0x01 Reserved > > 0x02 E-bit > > 0x04 MC-bit > > 0x08 N/P-bit > > 0x10 L-bit > > 0x20 DC-bit > > 0x40 O-bit > > 0x80 Reserved > > > > > > > > In IANA document (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters) > > last updated 2007-08-14 says > > > > > > Value Description Reference > > ------ ---------------- --------- > > 0x01 MT-bit [RFC4915] > > 0x02 E-bit [RFC2328] > > 0x04 MC-bit [RFC1584] > > 0x08 N/P-bit [RFC3101] > > 0x10 Reserved > > 0x20 DC-bit [RFC1793] > > 0x40 O-bit [RFC2370] > > 0x80 DN-bit [RFC4576] > > > > > > In all the three documents there is a conflict for bit 0x10, RFC 2328 > > uses it as EA bit , RFC 4813 uses it as L bit and IANA document says > > its reserved. Out of all these three which one shall i consider. > > > > > > Thanks and regards > > Santosh P K > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OSPF mailing list > > OSPF@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
- [OSPF] OSPFv2 option bit Santosh P K
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 option bit Anton Smirnov
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 option bit Santosh P K
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 option bit Santosh P K
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 option bit Abhay Roy
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 option bit Acee Lindem