Hi Acee,
On 9/30/15, 6:32 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sep 30, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Acee, >> >> >> >> >> On 9/30/15, 3:30 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 9/30/15, 12:57 AM, "Pushpasis Sarkar" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Les, >>>> >>>> On 9/30/15, 9:45 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> [Les:] Which seems to me to be exactly the definition of link of last >>>>> resort i.e. in the absence of any other alternative use the link >>>>> undergoing maintenance. >>>>> ?? >>>> [Pushpasis] What if the operator does not want any traffic on those links >>>> at all? Should not there be a way to ensure that as well? >>> >>> We have this mechanism - you don’t advertise the link… >> >> [Pushpasis] I will then ask, what if he/she still want that link to be >> advertised (because we want to it to be visible) but yet not use it if it >> still fails some policy? > >Then don’t advertise the adjacency on the link…. You can always advertise it >as a stub link. [Pushpasis] I would prefer to not do anything more here but just set the overload flag. Converting a full two-way adjacency to a stub link looks to me a little more complex for this case. I would not rule out the alternative provided by you. But to me a separate flag always looks cleaner. > >Thanks, >Acee > > >> >> Thanks >> -Pushpasis >> >>> >>> Acee >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
