Hi Peter, This is a valid concern and one that we¹ve discussed previously with respect to routing behavior based on policies. I think that accepting this draft as a WG document should not preclude standardization of capabilities advertisement for popular applications. Thanks, Acee
On 8/26/14, 4:05 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote: >On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF >> advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of >> remote-LFA eligibility. > >my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability >is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling of >the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you have >to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers. > >thanks, >Peter > >> >> Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an >> OSPF WG document. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> > >_______________________________________________ >OSPF mailing list >OSPF@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
