[OSPF] OSPF Multi-Instance and Transport Instance

Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com> Sat, 14 February 2009 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@redback.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 56B833A6825 for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:43:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 F5BTO9kkCtVe for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:43:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43703A6816 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:43:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98B920175A for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:43:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25041-03 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:43:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6???1] (unknown [155.53.154.39]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C52201759 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:43:52 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <A9450E2E-D05C-465F-AD82-FAEEFDD6134C@redback.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
To: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
From: Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:43:50 -0500
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com
Subject: [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: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:43:45 -0000

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