Hi Yi, The global addresses do need to be suppressed from OSPFv3 Link-LSAs since they are used by the DR to produce the Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA corresponding to the transit network Thanks, Acee
On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Yi Yang wrote: > 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
