Hi Acee,
Not opposing this idea but have 4 comments here:
1)
In section 5.2.1:
The OSPFv3 Auto-Configuration (AC) LSA has a function code of TBD and
the S1/S2 bits set to B'01' indicating Area Flooding Scope.
I think it should say S2/S1 as mentioned in RFC 5340. Since S2 comes
before S1 in packet format so it make sense to use the same sequence in
your text.
Also, not sure what you meant by letter 'B' next to '01'.
2)
In section 2.2:
For example, if manual
configuration or an other condition indicates that an interface
is connected to an Internet Service Provider (ISP), there is
typically no need to employ OSPFv3. However, note that in many
environments it can be useful to test whether an OSPFv3 adjacency
can be established. In home networking environments, an
interface where no OSPFv3 neighbors are found but a DHCP prefix
can be acquired may be considered as an ISP interface.
In a situation when you are running eBGP with an ISP and iBGP internally,
it is required to enable OSPFv3 on the ISP link unless you are using
next-hop-self in BGP. So in that case excluding ISP link is a bad idea.
Also in this case enabling OSPFv3 with passive-interface would make sense.
3)
In section 2.4:
OSPFv3 interfaces MUST auto-configure the default HelloInterval
and RouterDeadInterval as specified in [OSPFV3].
I think the "auto-configure" part is confusing here. We do not "configure"
the default values when we enable OSPFv3 on an interface. A better
sentence in my opinion would be:
OSPFv3 interfaces MUST use the default HelloInterval
and RouterDeadInterval as specified in [OSPFV3].
4) In section 5.2.1, wouldn't it be better to use the field name/letter
instead of the actual value? For example instead of mentioning 1 0 1 it
should say U S2 S1 and in the explanation section it should mention the
default value for AC LSA. Same logic goes for using TBD instead of "LSA
Function Code"
Thanks,
Faraz
On 9/17/12 1:58 PM, "Acee Lindem" <[email protected]> wrote:
>We had some support of making
>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-acee-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-03.txt an OSPFv3
>WG document at IETF 84. The impetus is:
>
> 1. OSPFv3 being considered as homenet routing protocol and
>autoconfiguration is a requirement.
> 2. Work on OSPFv3 configuration has started in the past in other WGs
>but not finished.
> 3. Current proposal has gone through a couple revision cycles with
>incremental comments addressed.
>
>Is anyone opposed?
>
>Thanks,
>Acee _______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
