Hi Swarup, On Jul 14, 2010, at 4:07 AM, swarup wrote:
> Hi, > > In "draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-05", why in section 4.5, reference to route > tag is truncated? Why would you want more than one loop prevention mechanism? > Is it because no backward compatibility is required for OSPFv3! This is a draft and not an RFC. Furthermore, IIRC, this has always been this way in this draft. Backward compatibility is not an issue. Thanks, Acee > > Ref: Section 4.5: > "Of the two loop preventions mechanisms described in the sections > aforementioned, only the DN bit option will be supported in the OSPFv3 > implementation." > > Regards, > Swarup > > > *************************************************************************************** > This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, > which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed > above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but > not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) > by persons other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive > this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately > and delete it! > *************************************************************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
