Hi Rajesh, Thanks for your comments. I agree that prefix-hiding must not be configured on VL interface. But link-LSAs are not being used in SPF calculations.
Yi On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Rajesh wrote: > Dear Acee, > > Some more thoughts. > > 1) In section 3 of this draft " Hiding IPv6 Transit-only Networks in OSPFv3" > We can also mention about LINK LSA. If the prefix hiding is configured on a > interface, then no need to mention global prefixes in Link LSA. > > 2) For prefix hiding configuration option, may be we need to support OSPF > and OSPFv3 MIBs as well. > > Thanks > Rajesh > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:49 PM > To: Rajesh > Cc: OSPF List > Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in > OSPF " - <draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt> > > Hi Rajesh, > > On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Rajesh wrote: > >> Dear Acee, >> >> We can add one statement in section 3 of this draft [which is for OSPFv3] >> "LA-bit prefix we advertise in intra area prefix LSA for Virtual LINK IPv6 >> address discovery, must not be taken from the interface where the prefix >> hiding is configured" > > It is somewhat obvious that you wouldn't choose an address that is not > advertised. However, I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that the RFC 5340, > Section 4.4.3.9. Intra-Area-Prefix-LSAs, selection an IPv6 address to > terminate virtual links will be modified to exclude interfaces with the > prefix hiding configured. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > >> >> Please check. >> >> Thanks & Regards >> Rajesh >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Acee >> Lindem >> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM >> Cc: OSPF List >> Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in > OSPF >> " - <draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt> >> >> As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF Working Group >> last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. >> Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to 12:00 AM >> PDT on February 23nd, 2012. >> Here is a URL for your convenience: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: >> >>> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is ready for >> OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions? >>> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you convenience: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt >>> >>> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: >>> >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ >>> >>> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any objections. >>> >>> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
