On 18/02/2019 14:37 , Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
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.
above is exactly right.
thanks,
Peter
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
It is listed multiple times but references the same CN201810650141.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
