Joel
>From my experience and vendor best practice as well as operators
deployments as well have always configure ethernet interfaces with P2P
subnet /31 or /127 as network type P2P for ospf to bypass DR election
immediate converge to Full state and ISIS to avoid DIS election and more
efficient.
"Needed"? Probably not. Almost no Informational RFCs are "needed".
The question is whether the WG considers it useful.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/24/2021 2:51 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
Joel -
Thanx for the revised version.
While I would still have some editorial comments to make, I think you
Joel -
Thanx for the revised version.
While I would still have some editorial comments to make, I think you have done
a good job of responding to the comments made.
The bigger question for me is whether the draft is needed at all.
I am still of the opinion that it is not needed.
Les
>
Tom, please look at the latest revision and see if that helps.
Also note, this document does not assign the ifType. (I.e. it does not
"create an ifType".) That is already done.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/24/2021 7:27 AM, tom petch wrote:
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: 23 June 2021 17:38
Joel -
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: 23 June 2021 17:38
Joel -
I have had concerns from the beginning as to whether this draft is really
needed.
As I have commented previously, the only content of any significance is Section
4 - and that only provides example settings of the management fields f
We have submitted a revision which we hope addresses the comments we
have received. Further feedback is appreciated.
Yours,
Joel
PS: I think one of the effects of the changes is to better align the
content with the intended informational status. It should be clear now
that it is information
