Yakov, What I said is:
> > 1. I don't believe that we need more than full-mesh connectivity for the > > basic mode; There is no intention to limit the document to the basic mode only. I would be happy to add to the draft something like: Controlling the connectivity on per L1VPN basis is for future study. Would it do? Igor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Rekhter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Igor Bryskin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [L1vpn] Issues and concerns about Basic Mode OSPF Discovery > Igor, > > > Hi Yakov > > > > Please, see in line. > > see in-line... > > > > We've yet to see how the OSPF approach would support anything other than > > > a full mesh connectivity. > > > > > > And if the OSPF approach is limited to full-mesh only, then the > > > OSPF spec must say so. > > > > IB>> I'd like to make a couple of points. > > > > 1. I don't believe that we need more than full-mesh connectivity for the > > basic mode; > > With this in mind, please add to the OSPF draft what you said above. > Namely that the authors of the draft don't believe that there is a need > for more than full-mesh. > > Yakov. > _______________________________________________ L1vpn mailing list L1vpn@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn
