It seems sending side and receiving side should follow the 3th/3th rule,
which will not violate both the description of mentioned OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
RFC.
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of
Veerendranatha Reddy V
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021
Hi All,
As per OSPF authentication RFCs , during last key expired/inactive key of key
chain the behavior of authentication process is different between OSPFv2/v3
For OSPFv2 from RFC 5709,
[ From Section 3.2]
Key storage SHOULD persist across a system restart, warm or cold, to
avoid o
Dear Authors
Why was MT chosen and not MI for VTN underlay network slice underpinning.
MT instances has separate topology but not separate LSDB where MI Multi
instance RFC 6822 has a separate LSDB for resources isolation and I think
would be a better fit for VTN underlay provisioning.
MI
https://
Robert ruminated:
>
> That said I think perhaps we are indeed missing LROW WG (Local Routing
> Operations WG) where just like in GROW WG where mainly (Global) BGP
> operational aspects are discussed there could be good place to discuss
> operational aspects of link state protocols deployment and u
Hi All,
I support the adoption as the co-author. I believe MT can play an important
role to build SR-based VTN and the current RFCs does not cover the topic. The
draft will be an useful informational document.
Best Regards,
Zhenbin (Robin)
--
