Re: [Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06: (with COMMENT)
On August 5, 2019 at 8:52:19 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) (a...@cisco.com) wrote: With https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5838/, separate instances are required for IPv4 and IPv6 topologies. With this enhancement, you'd only need to advertise TE information in one of those instances. Right. I think there’s an opportunity to clarify; the text talks about OSPFv2/IPv4 + OSPFv3/IPv6: I think we could add a sentence or two (maybe at the start of the Operation section) to clarify. Thanks!! Alvaro. ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06: (with COMMENT)
Hi Eric, On 8/5/19, 7:52 AM, "Éric Vyncke via Datatracker" wrote: Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te/ -- COMMENT: -- Alvara, Anton, Michael, Thank you for the work done for this document. Just curious about section 3: OSPFv2 routers send their IPv6 address(es) and OSPFv3 routers send their IPv4 address(es). But, what happens when OSPFv3 routers are multi-topology ? Should they also send their IPv6 address(es)? Of course, in this case, the issue fixed by your memo does not exist ;-) Probably worth mentioning anyway that OSPFv3 multi-topology does not need this feature. With https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5838/, separate instances are required for IPv4 and IPv6 topologies. With this enhancement, you'd only need to advertise TE information in one of those instances. Thanks, Acee Regards, -éric ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
[Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te/ -- COMMENT: -- Alvara, Anton, Michael, Thank you for the work done for this document. Just curious about section 3: OSPFv2 routers send their IPv6 address(es) and OSPFv3 routers send their IPv4 address(es). But, what happens when OSPFv3 routers are multi-topology ? Should they also send their IPv6 address(es)? Of course, in this case, the issue fixed by your memo does not exist ;-) Probably worth mentioning anyway that OSPFv3 multi-topology does not need this feature. Regards, -éric ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
