Julien,
- I don't know if there is any implementation that uses the solution
proposed in RFC 4203. I sent a query to the WG list and so far I have
not heard about a single one.
- there is not even IANA registry created for the Sub-TLVs of the Link
Local TLVs and there is no IANA value reserved for Link Local Identifier
TLV as defined in RFC4203.
So at the end we may not even have any duplication at all.
regards,
Peter
On 24/05/17 10:54 , Julien Meuric wrote:
Hi Acee,
There is indeed overwhelming support on the feature. However, reading
this brand new -01 (thanks for the advertisement) and the necessary
backward compatibility section it had to include, I wonder if this I-D
is specifying a solution to a problem vs. creating new issues...
More generally, we should clarify how much we, as community, are ready
to duplicate protocol extensions/codepoints on a solely "repurposing"
basis. If there is a risk of redefining all extensions originally
specified for the TE use-case, we must right now discuss where to
globally draw the line between what we may accept and what we will not.
Otherwise, we will jump onto a controversy each time a new parameter set
is tackled in a dedicated I-D.
Please note there are some other ways forward in the Routing area. For
(random) example, PCEP has been repurposed from a its original scope to
encompass capabilities to push state. To do so, some features and
objects had to be repurposed, but the specification managed to reuse the
original ones, avoiding any backward compatibility considerations...
Regards,
Julien
May. 23, 2017 - [email protected]:
The WG adoption poll has concluded and there is overwhelming support
for this document.
Additionally,
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id-01.txt addresses
the comments received the adoption poll.
Authors,
Please republish the document as draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-00.txt.
Thanks,
Acee
From: OSPF <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> on
behalf of Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM
This draft was presented in Chicago and there was acknowledgment
that a solution was needed. The authors have asked for WG adoption
and we are now doing a WG adoption poll. Please indicate your
support or objection by May 20th, 2017.
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
