Hi Acee,



On 9/29/15, 8:15 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote:


>I apologize if I offended you. I just wanted to avoid the circular discussions 
>and repetition of information having no bearing on the issues raised.  
[Pushpasis] No no. You have not offended me in any ways. So we are good then. I 
was worried that I might have offended you instead. :)
>
>
>> [Pushpasis] Like mentioned already, and again in my opinion, this will help 
>> the controller deal with scenarios where it needs to distinguish between 
>> situations in which a link has been administratively put into ‘out-of-order’ 
>> from situations where the link has degraded to a ‘malfunctioning’ state and 
>> needs attention. Unfortunately I cannot come up with a use-cases how this 
>> distinction can be used (other than diverting service traffics away from the 
>> links). Perhaps some of the operators may throw more light.
>
>I’d like to hear from the operators (especially the authors Luay and Mohan).
[Pushpasis] Me too :)
> 
>
>> 
>> 
>> Hoping I have not failed to communicate once more. If you still feel so, 
>> please let me know. And I will refrain myself from answering on this thread 
>> further.
>
>I think we are communicating now - the main question is what does this 
>link-maintenance condition needs to be flooded throughout the OSPF routing 
>domain when it seems that link-local signaling would offer a much more 
>straight-forward solution. The response so far has been, “For the controller 
>use-case” without any explanation of why increasing the forward and reverse 
>metrics isn’t enough (especially since you are doing this anyway for backward 
>compatibility). Les Ginsberg raised the same point.
[Pushpasis] I will not further exaggerate my already-expressed reasoning as I 
do not have a definite use case in hand. Hoping some operators in the working 
group may have more solid use-cases for this.

Thanks and Regards,
-Pushpasis

>
>Thanks,
>Acee 
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

Reply via email to