Keith Moore wrote:
...
bottom line: the Atlanta poll was essentially meaningless
except to indicate that there's a significant fraction of the
group that wants to discourage SLs to some extent.
I agree. The question that wasn't asked is why they want the
restriction. Of the group that
Hi Hiroki,
I know that you are writing for the Limited usage, but your document
does not leave the possibility of the Moderate usage at all.
Right. The recommendation in my document is for the limited usage.
Bob Hinden has written a draft that documents the moderate usage.
The WG will have
In the Atlanta meeting, I voted for the Moderate usage.
The choices were as below:
- Limited usage
only used in disconnected sites
no multi-site nodes
- Moderate usage
simple site-border router
no multi-site host or router requirements
bottom line: the Atlanta poll was essentially meaningless except
to indicate that there's a significant fraction of the group
that wants to discourage SLs to some extent.
Based on the minutes, we agreed at the time that the poll did
not demonstrate rough consensus of those present to pursue
On each process, all routing information, including global and
site-local are handled. Because of this, a user need to redistribute
global prefixes (not site-local prefixes) each other.
This is the demerit of separating OSPF process per site.
Thanks, Hiroki. I think I understand...
Do you
Hi Margaret,
On each process, all routing information, including global and
site-local are handled. Because of this, a user need to redistribute
global prefixes (not site-local prefixes) each other.
This is the demerit of separating OSPF process per site.
Thanks, Hiroki. I think I
Hi Margaret,
Hi Hiroki,
Please let me verify two things on draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-00.txt.
1. Does [The Impact of Site-Local Addressing in IPv6] try to
prohibit the use of SBR completely?
If the WG chooses to follow the recommendations in this document,
then SBRs will not longer
Hi Hiroki,
Yes, our SBR routers have been shipped since September, 2000 as
a commercial IPv4/IPv6 dual router. It supports RIPng, OSPFv3, and
BGP4+. I have explained our SBR support and routing protocols in this
mailing list once before when the site-local issues were brought up.
I do
Hi Margaret,
For OSPFv3, as you described in I-D, we are allocating separate OSPF
process for each area. The current OSPFv3 does not consider SBR at all.
This is the reason for separating OSPF processes.
Do these processes share a single global routing table, based on
the link-state
Margaret,
Please let me verify two things on draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-00.txt.
1. Does 「The Impact of Site-Local Addressing in IPv6」try to
prohibit the use of SBR completely?
2. By the statement,
"IPv6 site-local addresses be li
Hi Hiroki,
Please let me verify two things on draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-00.txt.
1. Does $B!V(BThe Impact of Site-Local Addressing in IPv6$B!W(Btry to
prohibit the use of SBR completely?
If the WG chooses to follow the recommendations in this document,
then SBRs will not longer
11 matches
Mail list logo
