Acee Thank you for reply. 2012/03/15 6:28), Acee Lindem wrote: > [Speaking as a WG member] > > Hi Shishio, > > I guess I didn't read this close enough the first time. > > On Feb 28, 2012, at 2:15 AM, Shishio Tsuchiya wrote: > >> Acee >> Thank you for information. >> But a lot of vendors already supported the high link metric to announce as >> stub. >> Therefore I think the draft should describe both of high link metric and >> R-bit. >> What do you think if the author add only one or two sentence which mentioned >> exist of R-bit to current internet draft? > > Due to its simplicity, I think the R-bit should be the preferred option. > Since all OSPFv3 implementations should support the R-bit, there are no > compatibility issues. Does everyone agree?
Yes,I strong agree that OSPFv3 should support the R-bit. It's described on rfc5340. My draft described two mode R-bit and high link metric. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shishio-ospf-ospfv3-stub I thought Alvaro's the draft should describe only high link metric. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/slides/ospf-2.pdf > > The only value I can see in using the high-link metric is that it allows the > existing implementations you cite to say they conform this draft. > Is that worth having two mechanisms? I could not find any difference essentially in 2 modes when I wrote the draft and discuss about this topic. But merit of high-link metric are -easy to implementation : most of vendor already supported this mode. -same operation OSPFv2 and OSPFv3: the operator needs to check metric value.(do not need to know new bit) I agree R-bit should be preferred option, but I think the draft should describe high-link metric also. Regards, -Shishio > > Thanks, > Acee > > >> >> Regards, >> -Shishio >> >> (2012/02/28 7:23), Acee Lindem wrote: >>> Hi Shishio, >>> If I remember correctly, there was discussion as to whether to just use the >>> R-bit rather than the high link metric for OSPFv3. Given the goals of the >>> draft, I'd be in favor of this change. >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> On Feb 24, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Shishio Tsuchiya wrote: >>> >>>> Hi >>>> After this draft be WG documents,it expired. >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis/ >>>> >>>> Was there any objection? or just maintenance issue? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> -Shishio >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OSPF mailing list >>>> OSPF@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
