A strong +1 here. Acee has captured very well the compelling(sic) reasons for defining these extensions.
Use of RFC 4302 extensions are only a workaround for functionality which is missing in the protocol. We need to close that gap. Les From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 1:27 PM To: OSPF WG List Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement" Speaking as a WG member: I believe we should move forward with this simple mechanism for OSPFv2 neighbors to learn each other’s interface ID. Both IS-IS and, more importantly, OSPFv3 learn the interface ID via their respective hello mechanisms. Just because one implementation has repurposed the Generalized MPL (GMPL) extensions described in RFC 4302 for interface ID learning is not a reason to preclude using the more generally accepted IGP Hello packet learning. Additionally, there is the undesirable side effect of TE LSAs resulting in inclusion in the TE topology for multiple implementations. Finally, when the right technical direction is clear and there is rough consensus, the OSPF WG MUST NOT be obstructed. Thanks, Acee From: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> Date: Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>> Subject: WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement" This draft was presented in Chicago and there was acknowledgment that a solution was needed. The authors have asked for WG adoption and we are now doing a WG adoption poll. Please indicate your support or objection by May 20th, 2017. Thanks, Acee
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
