Changwang,
On 22/11/2023 04:40, linchangwang wrote:
Hi Acee and WG，
I support the adoption of this draft as it provides a solution to
effectively address the problem of insufficient existing flags for
OSPFv2/OSPFv3. Additionally, it significantly enhances protocol extension
Hi Acee and WG，
I support the adoption of this draft as it provides a solution to effectively
address the problem of insufficient existing flags for OSPFv2/OSPFv3.
Additionally, it significantly enhances protocol extension capabilities.
I have a question: When the Prefix Attributes
Hi Bruno,
I’m in agreement with Les. One more points below.
> Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that any implementation is going to
> actually comply just because of our choice of adjective here.
> [Bruno] Exactly my above point: existing implementations may not bother and
> claims
Bruno -
First, without dismissing your comments, this is a WG adoption call - not a
Last Call to publish a draft as an RFC (as Tony has pointed out).
Could you state unambiguously whether you support adoption or not?
I am in agreement with Tony's responses. I think my earlier reply to you is
Speaking as WG member:
I agree with Tony, the WG intent should be to make the current defacto solution
transparent and provide for backward compatible improvements.
I’d add that in either case, upgrades will be required for full
interoperability and one might as well update to get the support
Hi Tony,
Thanks for your replies. Much appreciated
Please see inlines [Bruno]
In any case, that's fine to have a different perspective because we do (e.g.,
vendor vs operator)
Orange Restricted
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 5:45 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno
Hi Bruno,
Thank you for your comments.
> As a constructive proposal, and as mitigations, I would like the document be
> improved with the following changes:
> Sending MUST be controlled by configuration [1]
> [1]
> OLD: It is RECOMMENDED that implementations which support the sending of
>
Hi all,
I have some concerns with regards to the deployment of this extension in
brownfield multi-vendor networks as this could result in the formation of
persistent forwarding loops.
As a constructive proposal, and as mitigations, I would like the document be
improved with the following
