Hi Alvaro, Practically speaking, yes Monitor nodes are cool to have. But so are the Controller nodes. The difference would be that in both cases there is no topology information being injected by such nodes, however in the latter case the additional information could be injected.
Such information could be related to providing extra data to computation of topologies by other "Full IGP nodes" or could also be injecting or relaying discovery information related to IGP or BGP (for example RRs). Have you considered widening the scope a bit to accomplish this extra delta ? Thx Robert On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 1:17 PM Alvaro Retana <alvaro.ret...@futurewei.com> wrote: > > > Hi! > > Lin and I just published a draft that specifies mechanisms for an active > OSPF monitor: one that can be authenticated into the network but does not > affect the topology. This mechanism contrasts to a passive monitor: > listen-only node on a multiaccess link. > > The primary prompt for this work is that we have some applications where > the monitor node will be on the other end of a p2p interface. Therefore, > we have described a mechanism for that case (Section 3: Monitoring > Interface), and one for the general case where the monitor node can be > present on any interface (Section 4: The Monitor Node Option). > > Please take a look and send comments. > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-retana-lsr-ospf-monitor-node > > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
