Acee and OSPF'ers -
A few comments:
0) It's unclear what happens if the value of the instance_id (which
has semantics of AF/SAF) and the prefix options bits in 2.2.2 don't
match. What happens in this failure case and what should win?
a) in addition, what happens if an instance_id >= 128 is received?
1) The draft may want to call out a few more details that are in 5340
that the instance_id is per link and a few of the rules in 5340.
2) It isn't clear if there are or should be rules for leaking routes
between instances. For example:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07.txt
requires that leaking and policy is required. Given that, it seems you
have to have some general rules and failure conditions. For example,
leaking between instances of the same AF could be allowed and they are
to be imported as ASE ...
<As an aside I've cc'ed the CCAMP WG chairs to be aware of this draft
and WG LC>
3) Do you want to set aside a small set of instance_ids for non-
routing information at this time? Given you have taken on the work,
and you know it is coming maybe it makes sense now?
I have other comments but, this is a start.
-DWard
On Feb 25, 2009, at 5:13 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
This starts the Working Group Last Call for the subject document.
The target status is proposed standard.
The WG Last Call will start today and end March 12th at 12:00 AM EDT.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
