Hi, Just a couple of comments...
=== Section 1 s/proposes the addition of/defines/ === Section 4 Forgive me for not remembering this discussion... The draft says that we cannot use the Link ID sub-TLV "due to the protocol differences." It then says that the Link ID sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be included (implying that it MAY be included under certain circumstances) but MUST be ignored. 1. Does ignored mean "continue to be flooded" or "stripped from the LSA"? 2. Is it not possible to consider operating a GMPLS control plane in an IPv6 network where the routers use IPv6 addresses to communicate (so all control plane messages will be addressed using IPv6, and the router address will be IPv6 as described in Section 3) but where the data channel identifiers are assigned from an IPv4 address space? Recall that in GMPLS the interfaces used for OSPF exchange are not those used for data exchange. Whatever the answers, I think it would help if the reasons were clarified beyond "protocol differences." === Cheers, Adrian PS I wouldn't mind if you spelled my name right in the acks section :-) _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
