I support this. I do think we need to move people to OSPFv3 rather than update OSPFv2, but this seems straightforward.
On 9/26/15, 12:04 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: This draft was presented in Prague and there was consensus in the room that it was a valid use case. It provides protocol mechanisms to absolutely prevent transit traffic for OSPFv2 Routers (RFC 6987 only discourages transit traffic). The draft also includes assurance of backward compatibility. Please indicate your support (or concerns) for adopting this as a WG Document. Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf> _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
