Speaking as WG member: I am not opposed to this capability. However, I'm not sure if it justifies taking two of the remaining router bits. The Router-Information LSA (RFC 4970) is really the place for advertising capabilities.
It would be ideal if this could be done without an implicit backward compatibility mechanism. Doing an election just to see if all routers in the area are able to recognize the R-bit is complexity that would be nice to avoid. The draft recommends both setting the R-bit and advertising any transit links with 0xffff cost. Hence, It would be an odd topology where the differences in R-bit capability could cause a routing loop. Unfortunately, it is possible to draw one if you there is a valid path to a destination D, and that destination is accessible via multiple routers with varying R-bit capabilities :^(. Thanks, Acee On Apr 16, 2010, at 4:44 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > At the OSPF WG meeting in Anaheim, the subject draft was presented and there > seemed to be some interest in such a capability (similar to the overload bit > in ISIS). Please indicate whether or not you support making this draft a WG > document. > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-rbit-00.txt > > Thanks, > Acee - (as OSPF WG Co-chair) > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
