Hi Vishwas, Yes, vision is getting more blurry at my age :-) But back to this link local signaling, the other packet types we are talking about are LS update/ack/req. Do you really think we would need to provide additional unique header information for these (BTW, we have none today)? I understand the extensibility angle, but it doesn't seem warranted in this case.
We may have to agree to differ. Thanks, Liem Vishwas Manral wrote: > Hi Liem, > > I would say its a difference of vision of where we see LLS heading to > between us. However in my view if we allow the functionality, we do > not create any new issues (besides of course any security issues which > may result), however extending this in the future would create issues > in the future. > > Thanks, > Vishwas > > On Feb 18, 2008 11:05 AM, Liem Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Vishwas, >> >> >> Vishwas Manral wrote: >> >>> Hi Liem, >>> >>> Like I gave the example of Opaque LSA's where we created an Opaque >>> mechanism which could be used for all packets, I envision that the LLS >>> would be a general mechanism to add additional information to the OSPF >>> header, just like Opaque LSA's allowed further information exchanged. >>> >>> >> Thanks for the comments. >> True, for Opaque. But given that this is a link-local signaling >> mechanism, I don't foresee a need >> where additional information can't be conveyed with either Hello or DBD >> packets. >> >> Liem >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
