Subject: [OSPF] WG Last Call for Support of address families in OSPFv3 - draft-ietf-ospf-af-alt-07.txt

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:13:41 -0500

This starts the Working Group Last Call for the subject document. The  
target status is proposed standard.
The WG Last Call will start today and end March 12th at 12:00 AM EDT.

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: David Ward <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:23:45 -0600

Acee and OSPF'ers -

A few comments:

0) It's unclear what happens if the value of the instance_id (which  
has semantics of AF/SAF) and the prefix options bits in 2.2.2 don't  
match. What happens in this failure case and what should win?
	a) in addition, what happens if an instance_id >= 128 is received?

1) The draft may want to call out a few more details that are in 5340  
that the instance_id is per link and a few of the rules in 5340.

2) It isn't clear if there are or should be rules for leaking routes  
between instances. For example:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07.txt

requires that leaking and policy is required. Given that, it seems you  
have to have some general rules and failure conditions. For example,  
leaking between instances of the same AF could be allowed and they are  
to be imported as ASE ...

<As an aside I've cc'ed the CCAMP WG chairs to be aware of this draft  
and WG LC>

3) Do you want to set aside a small set of instance_ids for non- 
routing information at this time? Given you have taken on the work,  
and you know it is coming maybe it makes sense now?

I have other comments but, this is a start.

-DWard

On Feb 25, 2009, at 5:13 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:

> This starts the Working Group Last Call for the subject document.  
> The target status is proposed standard.
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf