Hi Shishio, I just looked at the expired draft and it doesn't include any discussion of the R-bit.
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-00.txt Can you put that in the next revision? Thanks, Acee On Mar 14, 2012, at 11:02 PM, Shishio Tsuchiya wrote: > Acee > Thank you for reply. > 2012/03/15 6:28), Acee Lindem wrote: >> [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? > > Yes,I strong agree that OSPFv3 should support the R-bit. > It's described on rfc5340. > My draft described two mode R-bit and high link metric. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shishio-ospf-ospfv3-stub > > I thought Alvaro's the draft should describe only high link metric. > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/slides/ospf-2.pdf > >> >> 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? > > I could not find any difference essentially in 2 modes when I wrote the draft > and discuss about this topic. > But merit of high-link metric are > -easy to implementation : most of vendor already supported this mode. > -same operation OSPFv2 and OSPFv3: the operator needs to check metric > value.(do not need to know new bit) > > I agree R-bit should be preferred option, but I think the draft should > describe high-link metric also. > > Regards, > -Shishio > >> >> 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
