Hi Eric,
On 8/5/19, 7:52 AM, "Éric Vyncke via Datatracker" <nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alvara, Anton, Michael,
Thank you for the work done for this document.
Just curious about section 3: OSPFv2 routers send their IPv6 address(es) and
OSPFv3 routers send their IPv4 address(es). But, what happens when OSPFv3
routers are multi-topology ? Should they also send their IPv6 address(es)?
Of
course, in this case, the issue fixed by your memo does not exist ;-)
Probably
worth mentioning anyway that OSPFv3 multi-topology does not need this
feature.
With https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5838/, separate instances are required
for IPv4 and IPv6 topologies. With this enhancement, you'd only need to
advertise TE information in one of those instances.
Thanks,
Acee
Regards,
-éric
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
