Acee, Thanks for your comments. Please see below.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:45 PM > To: [email protected] List > Subject: [OSPF] Comments on OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP > Interface Type - draft-ietf-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-00.txt > > I've reviewed the subject document and have a couple comments. > > This document introduces some new dependencies since > routers connected to the hybrid network are using the DRs > Router-LSA to originate their own Router-LSA. Hence, if some > goes wrong with the distributed DR election algorithm, > connectivity will fail differently than before. Is anyone > concerned about this? If so, we could add a requirement that > the non-DR router and the DR agree on who is DR prior to the > non-DR router using the DR-Router's Router-LSA to originate its own. Makes sense. How about the following? o If a router is not the DR and has a full adjacency to the DR, --> and both the DR and this router agree on the DR role, it MUST add a Type 1 link corresponding to each neighbor that is in state 2-Way or higher and to which the DR's router LSA includes a link. > > > The document needs a "Management Considerations" section > that addresses how the hybrid interface will be represented > in the OSPF and OSPFv3 MIBs. This would include the > ospfIfType and ospfv3IfType. Sure we'll add that. Should the neighbor entry be enhanced to include per-nbr metric as well? Current interface entry does include interface metrics, so it makes sense to include per-nbr metric in the nbr entry. Thanks. Jeffrey > > > Thanks, > Acee > > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
