Hi Vincent,
I couldn't agree more with Anton. Once you implement OSPFv3, you can
bring it forward as an experimental RFC and specify it completely
(not just the few reserved bits as we have today).
Also, I don't think the prospect of something that someone might
implement or even intends to implement is enough to influence the
standard. The original OSPFv3 document has been around since 1999 so
there has been an ample gestation period for MOSPFv3 implementations.
Thanks,
Acee
On Aug 3, 2007, at 3:50 AM, Anton Smirnov wrote:
Hi,
with OSPFv2 most implementations did not implement MOSPF (shall
I say MOSPFv2) and the same will probably be true for OSPFv3/
MOSPFv3. So I think it is very reasonable that we want to separate
mandatory part of OSPFv3 from optional (and so far not very well
specified) MOSPFv3.
We are not banning MOSPFv3 work completely. If there is interest
in MOSPFv3 it can be taken as separate work by interested parties.
Thanks,
Anton
Vincent Nogues wrote:
Hi,
I don't know any MOSPF implementation for IPv6. However, maybe, we
will developp such an implementation in the coming months. This
project is not yet definitive, so I would appreciate if this
removal could be postponed.
Thanks,
---------------------------------------------------
*Vincent NOGUES*
---------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
