Acee I had discussed Alvaro and co-authors about this by mail. Alvaro will update the draft after this ietf.
Regards, -Shishio (2012/03/15 15:44), Acee Lindem wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
