In the discussion of this document thus far two major concerns have been expressed:
1)Advertising information which is of use only to the neighbor in an advertisement which is area scoped is wrong 2)The scope of the problem to be addressed is not yet well defined. In particular whether TE attributes also need to be modified and if so how this would relate to the link overload signaling approach. I can believe that there is work here that is of interest to the WG and there may be a solution that is ultimately judged to be of value to deployments, but I would like to see a version of the draft that gets some greater degree of consensus before taking this on as a WG item. Right now I feel there is considerable doubt as to whether the draft is headed in the right direction. I encourage the authors to consider the significant feedback received in Prague and reassess what problems need to be solved and how best to do so. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: OSPF [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem > (acee) > Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 5:35 PM > To: OSPF WG List > Subject: [OSPF] OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01 > > In Prague, there was consensus in the room that this use case was not > covered by existing mechanisms and that it was a problem the WG should > solve. There were differing opinions as to the exact solution but that should > not preclude OSPF WG adoption. > > Please indicate your support (or concerns) for adopting this as a WG > Document. > > > 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
