> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shishio Tsuchiya [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 8:34 AM
...
> >> 1.Max-metric applicability is very large.
> >> -After RFC3137 was published,it used on RFC5443 and RFC6138.(LDP-
> SYNC)
> >
> > Are you asking for a reference to these RFCs for the LDP-IGP
> synchronization use case?
>
> Yes,I think it is better.
6138 points to 5443, which points to 3137
Any now 3137bis, which would be referenced by 3137 (as its successor) would
point to 6138 and 5443... I'm no expert, but isn't that a loop? ;-)
Seriously, I think all this pointing around is overkill.
Are you trying to propose that we write an applicability section? I'm afraid
that whatever we specifically (i.e. with references) mention will not be
complete because potentially other applications may come up. The "Motivation"
section (which I pasted below) already mentions some of the use cases (at a
high level). For example, the LDP sync application fits under graceful
introduction, as well as waiting for BGP.
If you have specific text you want to suggest adding to the motivation (that
doesn't make the new RFC become outdated faster), then we would be very glad to
consider it.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
1. Motivation
In some situations, it may be advantageous to inform routers in a
network not to use a specific router as a transit point, but still
route to it. Possible situations include the following:
o The router is in a critical condition (for example, has very high
CPU load or does not have enough memory to store all LSAs or build
the routing table).
o Graceful introduction and removal of the router to/from the
network.
o Other (administrative or traffic engineering) reasons.
Note that the proposed solution does not remove the router from the
topology view of the network (as could be done by just flushing that
router's router-LSA), but prevents other routers from using it for
transit routing, while still routing packets to the router's own IP
addresses, i.e., the router is announced as a stub.
It must be emphasized that the proposed solution provides real
benefits in networks designed with at least some level of redundancy
so that traffic can be routed around the stub router. Otherwise,
traffic destined for the networks reachable through such a stub
router will be still routed through it.
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
