Hi Acee,
On 8/26/14 15:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Peter,
This is a valid concern and one that we¹ve discussed previously with
respect to routing behavior based on policies. I think that accepting this
draft as a WG document should not preclude standardization of capabilities
advertisement for popular applications.
sure. Just that the draft mentions applications like "Controlling Remote
LFA tunnel termination", which I'm not sure the node tag is the best
approach for.
thanks,
Peter
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/26/14, 4:05 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
remote-LFA eligibility.
my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability
is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling of
the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you have
to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.
thanks,
Peter
Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an
OSPF WG document.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
.
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
