Re: [OSPF] Implementation Survey for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs

Mon, 31 Jul 2017 05:52:40 -0700

Hi Acee,

I received questions w.r.t. the difference between 3 and 5, I guess you meant:
- 3 and 4 are about AS <> area wide
- 5 and 6 are about full<>sparse mode
See answers inline.
Dirk

Op 28/07/2017 om 21:20 schreef Acee Lindem (acee):
Hi Dirk, Veeru, 

Please respond to the implementation survey questions below. 

  1. Does your implementation support for all 9 OSPFv3 Extended LSAs?
DG> Yes

  2. Does your implementation support for N-Bit Prefix Option?
DG> Yes
  3. Does your implementation support OSPFv3 Extended LSAs across the entire routing domain?
DG> Yes
  4. Does your implementation support per-area deployment of OSPF Extended LSAs (AS-External LSAs are legacy)? 

DG> OSPFv3 in legacy mode can enable extended LSA per area, but OSPFv3 in extended mode, cannot support legacy per area.

  5. Does your implementation support full deployment of OSPFv3 Extended LSAs?
DG> Yes
  6. Does your implementation support sparse mode deployment of OSPFv3 Extended LSAs? 
DG> Yes, by default
  7. Does your implementation support any applications that make use of OSPFv3 Extended LSAs (e.g., Segment Routing)? 
DG> Not yet, segment routing is in the pipe.
  8. Have you done any interoperability testing with other implementations?
DG> No, only some limited tests were done with Spirtent/Ixia

Thanks,
Acee 

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

Reply via email to