Ok - it seems I'm outnumbered and I should concede to documenting both options. I'd like to see the R-Bit as well. The draft is expired and hopefully this will be covered in the revision. Thanks, Acee On Mar 15, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Michael Barnes wrote:
> I agree with Shishio that high-link metric should certainly be covered. There > are some cases where one method may be preferred to the other, so network > operators should have the choice. > > Regards, > Michael > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:02:57 PM PDT > From: Shishio Tsuchiya <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]: [email protected], > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSPF] status of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis > > >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
