I agree with Peter. For this to work, the ABR would need to add ALL originators, while I had the impression that we only had 1 originator per prefix, i.e. the originator which was found to be the closed to the ABR and for which the ABR installed a route.
Dirk On 2/18/2019 14:15, Peter Psenak wrote: Support as coauthor, although I never really agreed with the usage of the prefix originator for topology construction as described in section 3 and 5. I would prefer that part to be removed. thanks, Peter On 13/02/2019 14:25 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: This begins a two week adoption poll for the subject draft. Please send your comments to this list before 12:00 AM UTC on Thursday, February 28^th , 2019. All authors have responded to the IPR poll and there is one <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext><https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext It is listed multiple times but references the same CN201810650141. Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
