[Speaking as a WG member] Hi Shishio,
I guess I didn't read this close enough the first time. On Feb 28, 2012, at 2:15 AM, Shishio Tsuchiya wrote: > Acee > Thank you for information. > But a lot of vendors already supported the high link metric to announce as > stub. > Therefore I think the draft should describe both of high link metric and > R-bit. > What do you think if the author add only one or two sentence which mentioned > exist of R-bit to current internet draft? Due to its simplicity, I think the R-bit should be the preferred option. Since all OSPFv3 implementations should support the R-bit, there are no compatibility issues. Does everyone agree? The only value I can see in using the high-link metric is that it allows the existing implementations you cite to say they conform this draft. Is that worth having two mechanisms? Thanks, Acee > > Regards, > -Shishio > > (2012/02/28 7:23), Acee Lindem wrote: >> Hi Shishio, >> If I remember correctly, there was discussion as to whether to just use the >> R-bit rather than the high link metric for OSPFv3. Given the goals of the >> draft, I'd be in favor of this change. >> Thanks, >> Acee >> On Feb 24, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Shishio Tsuchiya wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> After this draft be WG documents,it expired. >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis/ >>> >>> Was there any objection? or just maintenance issue? >>> >>> Regards, >>> -Shishio >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSPF mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
