Hi Eric, We discussed this both on the list and at IETF 95. In summary, there is no general agreement on either whether there is an OSPF third-party application info distribution use case or, if there is one, whether this draft meets the requirements. Thanks, Acee
On 4/14/16, 10:05 PM, "Wunan (Eric)" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Acee, > >I think the motivation below makes sense. Actually this is the way people >had already been doing, not only operators. > >"One major benefit of using administrative tags rather > than IANA defined TLVs or sub-TLVs to indicate different services is > to facilitate the rapid deployment of new services without any need > for the standardization of those TLVs or sub-TLVs. However, there > are some special use cases where the service to be advertised has one > or more attributes which need to be advertised as well. In such > case, the administrative tag is not much applicable anymore" > >Personally I wish one more generalized mechanism can exist instead of one >Node tag and one proprietary TLV. >Anyway, I'd like to see this I-D can go further and "lot of things we can >further improve" at the same time, as Uma mentioned. > >Regards >Eric > >> -----邮件原件----- >> 发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] >> 发送时间: 2016年3月17日 10:09 >> 收件人: OSPF WG List >> 主题: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile >>Service >> Deployment" >> >> We’ve discussed this draft a number of times. In my opinion, it seems >>like a useful >> mechanism if one envisions a generalized API between OSPF and user and >>third-party >> applications to convey application-specific information learned from >>other OSPF >> routers. In many respects, this has already been envisioned for OSPF >>Node Tags. >> Please indicate your opinion on this draft before March 31st, 2016. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
