Acee: > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 9:56 AM ... > >> -move R-bit to solution from Deployment Considerations > >> ex.) > >> 3. Proposed Solution > >> 3-1.maximum metric > >> 3-2.R-bit > >> > >> What do you think of my recommendation? > > > > 3173 is about documenting the MaxLinkMetric approach, which is why we > chose to reference the R-bit as other solutions. 3137 is not about > comparing or describing the full functionality of the different > approaches. > > The main we respin RFCs is to incorporate changes and there is no > reason not to document the R-bit mechanism to accomplish the OSPFv3 > stub router function.
Besides from the reference (see below), what else do you think we should include? The point I'm trying to make is: rfc5340 already defines and documents the R-bit functionality (and it is the standard!). IMHO, there is no need to rehash here what is already defined and explained somewhere else...which is why I think the reference is enough. Thanks! Alvaro. 4.1. Other Solutions This document describes a technique that has been implemented and deployed in a wide variety of networks. OSPFv3 [RFC5340] introduced additional options to provide similar, if not better, control of the forwarding topology; the R-bit and the V6-bit provide a more granular indication of whether a router is active and/or whether it should be used specifically for IPv6 traffic, respectively. It is left to network operators to decide which technique to use in their network. _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
