> On Sep 30, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Acee, > > > > > On 9/30/15, 3:30 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 9/30/15, 12:57 AM, "Pushpasis Sarkar" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Les, >>> >>> On 9/30/15, 9:45 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> [Les:] Which seems to me to be exactly the definition of link of last >>>> resort i.e. in the absence of any other alternative use the link >>>> undergoing maintenance. >>>> ?? >>> [Pushpasis] What if the operator does not want any traffic on those links >>> at all? Should not there be a way to ensure that as well? >> >> We have this mechanism - you don’t advertise the link… > > [Pushpasis] I will then ask, what if he/she still want that link to be > advertised (because we want to it to be visible) but yet not use it if it > still fails some policy?
Then don’t advertise the adjacency on the link…. You can always advertise it as a stub link. Thanks, Acee > > Thanks > -Pushpasis > >> >> Acee >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
