Hi Liem, I would say its a difference of vision of where we see LLS heading to between us. However in my view if we allow the functionality, we do not create any new issues (besides of course any security issues which may result), however extending this in the future would create issues in the future.
Thanks, Vishwas On Feb 18, 2008 11:05 AM, Liem Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Vishwas, > > > Vishwas Manral wrote: > > Hi Liem, > > > > Like I gave the example of Opaque LSA's where we created an Opaque > > mechanism which could be used for all packets, I envision that the LLS > > would be a general mechanism to add additional information to the OSPF > > header, just like Opaque LSA's allowed further information exchanged. > > > > Thanks for the comments. > True, for Opaque. But given that this is a link-local signaling > mechanism, I don't foresee a need > where additional information can't be conveyed with either Hello or DBD > packets. > > Liem > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
