The WG Last Call has ended. I do have a couple minor comments.
1. Section 1 list the advantages for setting up an LSP over a TTZ as
opposed
to an area. The details of this are not described in the document so
this
should either be removed or the document should explicitly state the
details
of LSP setup are out of scope.
2. In section 11.2, I can see some race conditions if different TTZ
status is
configured on different routers in the TTZ during the
migration/rollback
period. This is addressed by saying a warning message will be issued
if
this occurs. How is this detected and will the conflicting operation
be
rejected?
3. I guess one misconfigured router (no TTZ ID configured) will keep
migration
to TTZ from occurring. What happens if a misconfigured router is
introduced
on a broadcast link? Do all routers on the link revert to non-TTZ
operation?
I also have a number of editorial comments but will send those offline.
Thanks,
Acee
On 1/17/16, 3:30 PM, "OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>This is the start of the WG last call for the “OSPF Topology Transparent
>Zone” protocol extensions draft. We’ve had a number of discussions on this
>and Huawei has a prototype implementation. The WG last call will end at
>12:00 AM PDT on February 1st, 2016. For your convenience, here is a URL:
>
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ttz/
>
>Thanks,
>Acee and Abhay
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
