From calendar-invite@reply.yahoo.com Wed Apr 2 02:48:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2CE33A6942 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 02:48:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.578 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m8vdE1qIPvH5 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 02:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n28a.bullet.scd.yahoo.com (n28a.bullet.scd.yahoo.com [209.73.160.84]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 44AB328C558 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 02:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.218.69.5] by n28.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Apr 2008 09:47:26 -0000 Received: from [68.142.194.244] by t5.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Apr 2008 09:47:26 -0000 Received: from [209.191.93.244] by t2.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Apr 2008 09:47:26 -0000 Date: 02 Apr 2008 02:47:26 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by web121.cal.pim.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Apr 2008 09:47:26 -0000 x-yahoo-newman-errors: calendar-invite.ojqwqylbnruw25ltmeytsi3kguwtcmrqg4yteojwgq3c24tbnbqwc3djnv2xgyjrherwunj2gizq-ospf-archive=lists.ietf.org@returns.bulk.yahoo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-to: rahaalimusa19@yahoo.fr Errors-To: rahaalimusa19@yahoo.fr From: Rahaali Musa To: ospf-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: FROM MR . RAHA. ALI ,MUSA. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED GET BACK TO ME X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: calendar-invite X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: rahaalimusa19#j5-1207129646-rahaalimusa19#j5:23 X-Yahoo-Calendar-Iid: bxA5Frz%40cLp3%40EXlqxlMtp3agUes%40liCyxE6xh%40%40 X-RocketSRV: siu=http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/pim/el/inv16_1.gif;siw=16;sih=16;allow=all Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="YCalInvites=CzDrNoWxTtMyjlX4IdDpYrxC56GnnTK1207129642-1" Message-Id: <20080402094726.44AB328C558@core3.amsl.com> --YCalInvites=CzDrNoWxTtMyjlX4IdDpYrxC56GnnTK1207129642-1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Invitation : "FROM MR . RAHA. ALI ,MUSA. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED GET BACK TO ME ". Par votre hôte Rahaali Musa: With due respect: Greetings to you, I am Mr. RAHA ALI the Account Manager of Late Mr. Morris Thompson in ( B.S.I.C )Bank, here in Burkina Faso Ouagadougou Africa. I discovered his Dormant Account with a huge amount of Money Valued (Fourteen Million Dollars only) that belongs to late Mr. Morris Thompson who died in a plane crash with his entire family, if your are interested to run this deal with me, then more details will be discussed once I hear from you and 40% for you while 60% for me Date: mercredi, 2 avril 2008 Heure: 8 h 00 - 9 h 00 (GMT+00:00) Viendrez-vous ? Répondre à cette invitation, à: http://calendar.yahoo.com/rahaalimusa19?v=126&a1=0&iid=bxA5Frz%40cLp3%40EXlqxlMtp3agUes%40liCyxE6xh%40%40&igid=shal3erbb4po%40Qr5Rxd-Qsd%40DC%40ea5hWBh%408Ru7%40w9v%40 Copyright © 2008 Tous droits réservés. www.yahoo.fr Données personnelles: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Conditions d'utilisation: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --YCalInvites=CzDrNoWxTtMyjlX4IdDpYrxC56GnnTK1207129642-1 Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1252; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Vous êtes invité ::   FROM MR . RAHA. ALI ,MUSA. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED GET BACK TO ME
Par votre hôte:   Rahaali Musa
 
Message:   With due respect:
Greetings to you, I am Mr. RAHA ALI the Account Manager of Late Mr. Morris Thompson in ( B.S.I.C )Bank, here in Burkina Faso Ouagadougou Africa. I discovered his Dormant Account with a huge amount of Money Valued (Fourteen Million Dollars only) that belongs to late Mr. Morris Thompson who died in a plane crash with his entire family, if your are interested to run this deal with me, then more details will be discussed once I hear from you and 40% for you while 60% for me
 
Date:   mercredi, 2 avril 2008
Heure:   8 h 00 - 9 h 00  (GMT+00:00)
 
Viendrez-vous ?   Répondre à cette invitation
Copyright © 2008  Yahoo! Tous droits réservés. | Conditions d'utilisation | Données personnelles
--YCalInvites=CzDrNoWxTtMyjlX4IdDpYrxC56GnnTK1207129642-1-- From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 2 14:01:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D5C3A6F4E; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E6F63A68B9 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:01:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k2fdh27T1TFr for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF343A6F26 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:00:17 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=IBeSrY0xaaZacQm8/wCMrbbWPChuA/FQdQPbFL7QyZDw46smCOx7wwAk61yUwumx; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [4.245.100.129] by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JhA48-0001sD-Fe; Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:00:17 -0400 Message-ID: <47F4026E.2060503@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:02:22 -0800 From: Richard Ogier User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ospf@ietf.org X-ELNK-Trace: a073897a9455599e74bf435c0eb9d47887a5dba1e6b14d0a1afe1e5192ad9b8cf24a35bdfdfbba7a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.245.100.129 Subject: [OSPF] Implementation of draft-ietf-ospf-dbex-opt-02.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org During the recent IESG review of this draft, it was mentioned that there are no known implementations of this database exchange optimization (other than the OSPF-MDR implementation available from Boeing). It is trivial to modify an existing OSPF implementation to use this optimization, and I am including a patch below for the Quagga 0.99.9 implementation of OSPFv3. This patch was tested using the GTNetS simulator. You can download the source code for Quagga 0.99.9 at http://www.quagga.net/download/ To incorporate the optimization, put the "diff" code below in a file called "patch_file" (you might have to correct any wraparound), and apply the patch to the file quagga-0.99.9/ospf6d/ospf6_message.c I.e., go to the above directory and run patch ospf6_message.c < patch_file To activate the optimization, you must define DBEX_OPT. Richard 558a559,572 > > #ifdef DBEX_OPT // From draft-ietf-ospf-dbex-opt > // If his is newer or same as mine, then remove mine > // from summary_list for neighbor > struct ospf6_lsa *mine_summary; > if (mine != NULL && ospf6_lsa_compare (his, mine) <= 0) > { > mine_summary = ospf6_lsdb_lookup (his->header->type, his->header->id, > his->header->adv_router, on->summary_list); > if (mine_summary) > ospf6_lsdb_remove (mine_summary, on->summary_list); > } > #endif // DBEX_OPT > 780a795,808 > > #ifdef DBEX_OPT // From draft-ietf-ospf-dbex-opt > // If his is newer or same as mine, then remove mine > // from summary_list for neighbor > struct ospf6_lsa *mine_summary; > if (mine != NULL && ospf6_lsa_compare (his, mine) <= 0) > { > mine_summary = ospf6_lsdb_lookup (his->header->type, his->header->id, > his->header->adv_router, on->summary_list); > if (mine_summary) > ospf6_lsdb_remove (mine_summary, on->summary_list); > } > #endif // DBEX_OPT > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 2 14:38:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96593A6CA2; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:38:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FFC28C199 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:38:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SmFpcuGwOCUg for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6803A6DED for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so2986469wfa.31 for ; Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:38:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=hmVW9GLyZyLRRpBJ8whrLHEPyKA5imAqM4ehwXPSlDY=; b=D7nlw+IKq96YdXkvBC22B9dfrR2j0dymfGKvL5v2G1WG9WM8jp+ysFfvWxp5XRkiLKzYfXnJvzmAcgqLxmAgjBzJgctQUDHriVfJ2B5Re84CXixDj8oaTlSxY/eb3LTo+ulQGbOFYyTKzACgtUN015F3BOy6t3dnwuomqbYyMZQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=W1hrYfRgC6dm+xczg/ESbP5/vey2P5QpUWoymas+l3OraMiGx/R+T2DEFbXnRF14IT4B2syT6TVLxwQeyKTZXDiHZ+WjJfDc20O0UqXsG8BRR0pfP0cqJYzD6NhgxveAkEOTwxxO6T+Q7cDou4h8zFdDXQa+ievLXikhR7ffmVs= Received: by 10.142.163.14 with SMTP id l14mr6447480wfe.230.1207172317548; Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.9.18 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <77ead0ec0804021438m7ac2863icd0ed5dd808f9ba3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:38:37 -0700 From: "Vishwas Manral" To: "Richard Ogier" In-Reply-To: <47F4026E.2060503@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <47F4026E.2060503@earthlink.net> Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] Implementation of draft-ietf-ospf-dbex-opt-02.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Richard, I think the draft is good and helpful. Besides the changes already mentioned below, one more point that could help is to actually send the LSA's in DB description packets in different orders. If we probably run between two similar implementations and bring up a new link between two routers (which are already in connected in the same area - the optimization may not help). Thanks, Vishwas On undefined, Richard Ogier wrote: > During the recent IESG review of this draft, it was mentioned > that there are no known implementations of this database > exchange optimization (other than the OSPF-MDR implementation > available from Boeing). It is trivial to modify an existing > OSPF implementation to use this optimization, and I am including > a patch below for the Quagga 0.99.9 implementation of OSPFv3. > This patch was tested using the GTNetS simulator. > > You can download the source code for Quagga 0.99.9 at > http://www.quagga.net/download/ > > To incorporate the optimization, put the "diff" code below in > a file called "patch_file" (you might have to correct any > wraparound), and apply the patch to the file > > quagga-0.99.9/ospf6d/ospf6_message.c > > I.e., go to the above directory and run > > patch ospf6_message.c < patch_file > > To activate the optimization, you must define DBEX_OPT. > > Richard > > 558a559,572 > > > > #ifdef DBEX_OPT // From draft-ietf-ospf-dbex-opt > > // If his is newer or same as mine, then remove mine > > // from summary_list for neighbor > > struct ospf6_lsa *mine_summary; > > if (mine != NULL && ospf6_lsa_compare (his, mine) <= 0) > > { > > mine_summary = ospf6_lsdb_lookup (his->header->type, > his->header->id, > > his->header->adv_router, > on->summary_list); > > if (mine_summary) > > ospf6_lsdb_remove (mine_summary, on->summary_list); > > } > > #endif // DBEX_OPT > > > 780a795,808 > > > > #ifdef DBEX_OPT // From draft-ietf-ospf-dbex-opt > > // If his is newer or same as mine, then remove mine > > // from summary_list for neighbor > > struct ospf6_lsa *mine_summary; > > if (mine != NULL && ospf6_lsa_compare (his, mine) <= 0) > > { > > mine_summary = ospf6_lsdb_lookup (his->header->type, > his->header->id, > > his->header->adv_router, > on->summary_list); > > if (mine_summary) > > ospf6_lsdb_remove (mine_summary, on->summary_list); > > } > > #endif // DBEX_OPT > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 2 14:47:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8583A6EE3; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:47:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4967628C519 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:47:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nLSJm5s8gBlx for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.170]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 651343A6F0E for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so2989770wfa.31 for ; Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:45:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=2osCAyMpdyF57H5q9LOt4bKSgtCKeGhSm9QyVK+gQO8=; b=Jnd+lS5K17u1XFiHDjjxPilFAPAQHu4gwKCDAG6tTdPqiwMwbABTps96Nx1Msfk1eguAel1VvTqx9FivpmlTZeuusdQ6jsGqUHXaz406kN7uAquAwxMSUqX4ZhHAFT5m+JifAXk393Dnv2PbLVq46HxdbVxFpk5UBWhm1bFKYu8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=RA3wN6mrZut3UAhHayBBgR++q8o8zRQjDqzTcvcRPc7X1zXXYvkE3PNJzxzS/dKhxzZgVjucOrNtTo3hfBgh/dTucorxE0wSLennMo+QqT1DIldJOoEqx69MguWajONGVqG4JZNDkFMVp5jBj2Tq4EABEXM3+mmfQnKSxBUGUmo= Received: by 10.142.12.14 with SMTP id 14mr6475033wfl.152.1207172756681; Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.9.18 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <77ead0ec0804021445l6dfa77fah7f70b303c2d943cb@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:45:56 -0700 From: "Vishwas Manral" To: "Richard Ogier" In-Reply-To: <77ead0ec0804021438m7ac2863icd0ed5dd808f9ba3@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <47F4026E.2060503@earthlink.net> <77ead0ec0804021438m7ac2863icd0ed5dd808f9ba3@mail.gmail.com> Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] Implementation of draft-ietf-ospf-dbex-opt-02.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Richard, To contradict what I just said. I think just having the LSA's in any order will still help. As we have a Master slave model for DD exchange the same will not affect the order in which LSA's are sent out. The total number of LSA's exchanged will still be the total number of LSA's. Thanks, Vishwas On undefined, Vishwas Manral wrote: > Hi Richard, > > I think the draft is good and helpful. > > Besides the changes already mentioned below, one more point that could > help is to actually send the LSA's in DB description packets in > different orders. If we probably run between two similar > implementations and bring up a new link between two routers (which are > already in connected in the same area - the optimization may not > help). > > Thanks, > Vishwas > > > > On undefined, Richard Ogier wrote: > > During the recent IESG review of this draft, it was mentioned > > that there are no known implementations of this database > > exchange optimization (other than the OSPF-MDR implementation > > available from Boeing). It is trivial to modify an existing > > OSPF implementation to use this optimization, and I am including > > a patch below for the Quagga 0.99.9 implementation of OSPFv3. > > This patch was tested using the GTNetS simulator. > > > > You can download the source code for Quagga 0.99.9 at > > http://www.quagga.net/download/ > > > > To incorporate the optimization, put the "diff" code below in > > a file called "patch_file" (you might have to correct any > > wraparound), and apply the patch to the file > > > > quagga-0.99.9/ospf6d/ospf6_message.c > > > > I.e., go to the above directory and run > > > > patch ospf6_message.c < patch_file > > > > To activate the optimization, you must define DBEX_OPT. > > > > Richard > > > > 558a559,572 > > > > > > #ifdef DBEX_OPT // From draft-ietf-ospf-dbex-opt > > > // If his is newer or same as mine, then remove mine > > > // from summary_list for neighbor > > > struct ospf6_lsa *mine_summary; > > > if (mine != NULL && ospf6_lsa_compare (his, mine) <= 0) > > > { > > > mine_summary = ospf6_lsdb_lookup (his->header->type, > > his->header->id, > > > his->header->adv_router, > > on->summary_list); > > > if (mine_summary) > > > ospf6_lsdb_remove (mine_summary, on->summary_list); > > > } > > > #endif // DBEX_OPT > > > > > 780a795,808 > > > > > > #ifdef DBEX_OPT // From draft-ietf-ospf-dbex-opt > > > // If his is newer or same as mine, then remove mine > > > // from summary_list for neighbor > > > struct ospf6_lsa *mine_summary; > > > if (mine != NULL && ospf6_lsa_compare (his, mine) <= 0) > > > { > > > mine_summary = ospf6_lsdb_lookup (his->header->type, > > his->header->id, > > > his->header->adv_router, > > on->summary_list); > > > if (mine_summary) > > > ospf6_lsdb_remove (mine_summary, on->summary_list); > > > } > > > #endif // DBEX_OPT > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OSPF mailing list > > OSPF@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 3 14:33:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0A83A68C6; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:33:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97A93A686D for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:33:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.073 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.526, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dVd5-5aR5Wvz for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:33:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336EB3A683D for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:33:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70243BE9E; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02153-06; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [?d???n?IPv6???1] (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 412473BE9F; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:33:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <00275A5B436CA441900CB10936742A384EC92D@FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com> References: <00275A5B436CA441900CB10936742A384EC92D@FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: <39CA30D6-ABB6-47D9-BE46-52A565E78862@redback.com> From: Acee Lindem Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:33:09 -0400 To: PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] IETF 71 OSPF WG Minutes X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org On Mar 21, 2008, at 2:35 PM, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote: > acee, > >> Question regarding PW3 document (Andrew's draft) >> Acee - not a big fan >> Dave Ward - have the authors give another presentation >> Dimitri Papadimitriou - What is holdup? > > add: comments raised were addressed (e.g. possibility to segment > between > instances when solution will be made available by OSPF WG see Section > 5.3). Added. > >> Acee - Number of people didn't like it, but we are deferring to >> PW3 group. Now it seems that PW3 is supporting it so can bring >> it back to OSPF WG for consideration. > > side note: i would like to keep the discussion at the technical > level if > any remaining - ping-pong between working groups do not help solving > them. Added. > >> Multi-instance / Transport Instance Draft - Acee (See Slides) >> >> Will be pushing harder for this, discuss on list > > add (if my record is correct, you stated also that): the working group > will open the floor for alternative solutions once the problem > statement > will be refined further than a brief overview introduction (as it > is the > case in this v00 of the document). We won't stop anything from being proposed. Didn't I ask the that technical discussions be addressed in separate mail threads? Thanks, Acee > > thanks, > -d. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Acee Lindem >> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 5:23 PM >> To: OSPF List >> Subject: [OSPF] IETF 71 OSPF WG Minutes >> >> Please unicast corrections to me. If you want to discuss a >> specific topic, please start a thread on this list with the >> specific topic as the subject (this will make searching the >> archives easier). >> >> >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/ospf.txt >> >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 4 07:46:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D14B428C4AB; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:46:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40E4028C496 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:46:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.351, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L0Xc3pF05LJJ for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F713A6A67 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29368C4F897; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25104-02; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [?6???g??p???y??$IPv6???1] (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16CEBC4F89A; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:46:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <079701c889ec$22702080$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> References: <079701c889ec$22702080$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) X-Priority: 3 Message-Id: From: Acee Lindem Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:46:16 -0400 To: Adrian Farrel X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: CCAMP List , OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] CCAMP last call on advertisement of inter-AS TE links X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org I can't speak for the OSPF WG as a whole, but I have reviewed the subject document and am very happy to see that the suggestion to use separate inter-AS LSA types has been incorporated. I have no further technical comments on the document and trust that the ccamp WG has verified that this information encoding meets the TE requirements. The usage described in sections 2.2 and 2.3 seem reasonable to me. I have the following editorial comments: 1. Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.2 - Both of these say "Use of the TE Router ID is RECOMMENDED." I believe these should be respectively replaced by "Use of the TE Router Address as specified in the Router Address TLV [OSPF-TE] is RECOMMENDED." and "Use of the TE Router IPv6 Address as specified in the IPv6 Router Address as specified in the IPv6 Router Address TLV [OSPF-V3-TE] is RECOMMENDED." 2. Section 3.2.1 states "This is because... that may operate in a different address space;". If they are using a different address space on the link between the ASes, then I'd expect there to be problems with BGP as well :^) I'd suggest: "Given that OSPF is an IGP and should only be utilized between routers in the same routing domain, the OSPF specific Link ID and Neighbor ID sub-TLVs are not applicable to inter-AS links.". 3. You may want to expand some acronyms on their first use. For example, "AS Boundary Router (ASBR)", "Link State Advertisement (LSA)" and "Path Computation Element (PCE)". 4. [OSPFV3] is listed to as both a Normative and Informative reference. Thanks, Acee On Mar 19, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > You may recall providing useful review and feedback on > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas- > te-extension-02.txt > > The authors believe that they have taken on board all the comments > received > from the OSPF working group and have updated the draft accordingly. > > > CCAMP is holding a three week working group last call on this I-D > along with > its IS-IS partner document: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas- > te-extension-00.txt > > These documents describe how to advertise the TE links that connect > an AS to > the outside world within the AS's IGP. As the drafts are at pains > to point > out, there is no proposal to advertise the TE information more > widely (such > as to other ASes). > > The last call will end at 12 noon BST on April 9th 2008. > > Please send your comments to the CCAMP list or direct to the CCAMP > chairs. > > Thanks, > Adrian and Deborah > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 4 09:22:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 632323A6A13; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:22:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417FD3A67D7 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:22:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fBAOZ9yN58iM for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (gc-na5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C323A6A13 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRVELSBHS04.ad2.ad.alcatel.com (frvelsbhs04.ad2.ad.alcatel.com [155.132.6.76]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/ICT) with ESMTP id m34GGcFf028238; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:16:38 +0200 Received: from FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com ([155.132.6.51]) by FRVELSBHS04.ad2.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:22:43 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:22:37 +0200 Message-ID: <00275A5B436CA441900CB10936742A385C1D98@FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com> In-Reply-To: <39CA30D6-ABB6-47D9-BE46-52A565E78862@redback.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OSPF] IETF 71 OSPF WG Minutes Thread-Index: AciV0lLGd6QJuROtTyKrGvcCasqB1wAAFKtg References: <00275A5B436CA441900CB10936742A384EC92D@FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com> <39CA30D6-ABB6-47D9-BE46-52A565E78862@redback.com> From: "PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri" To: "Acee Lindem" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2008 16:22:43.0451 (UTC) FILETIME=[1C3FDCB0:01C89670] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 155.132.188.84 Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] IETF 71 OSPF WG Minutes X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee@redback.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:33 PM > To: PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri > Cc: OSPF List > Subject: Re: [OSPF] IETF 71 OSPF WG Minutes > > > On Mar 21, 2008, at 2:35 PM, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote: > > > acee, > > > >> Question regarding PW3 document (Andrew's draft) > >> Acee - not a big fan > >> Dave Ward - have the authors give another presentation > >> Dimitri Papadimitriou - What is holdup? > > > > add: comments raised were addressed (e.g. possibility to segment > > between > > instances when solution will be made available by OSPF WG > see Section > > 5.3). > > Added. > > > > >> Acee - Number of people didn't like it, but we are deferring to > >> PW3 group. Now it seems that PW3 is supporting it so can bring > >> it back to OSPF WG for consideration. > > > > side note: i would like to keep the discussion at the technical > > level if > > any remaining - ping-pong between working groups do not help solving > > them. > > Added. > > > > >> Multi-instance / Transport Instance Draft - Acee (See Slides) > >> > >> Will be pushing harder for this, discuss on list > > > > add (if my record is correct, you stated also that): the > working group > > will open the floor for alternative solutions once the problem > > statement > > will be refined further than a brief overview introduction (as it > > is the > > case in this v00 of the document). > > We won't stop anything from being proposed. Didn't I ask the that > technical discussions be addressed in separate mail threads? the only record i saw in the minutes is the one mentioned here above. reason why i asked to complement it as i think that discussion needs to happen (and urgently before pushing the docs themselves as you also stated) thanks, -dimitri. > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > > thanks, > > -d. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On > >> Behalf Of Acee Lindem > >> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 5:23 PM > >> To: OSPF List > >> Subject: [OSPF] IETF 71 OSPF WG Minutes > >> > >> Please unicast corrections to me. If you want to discuss a > >> specific topic, please start a thread on this list with the > >> specific topic as the subject (this will make searching the > >> archives easier). > >> > >> > >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/ospf.txt > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Acee > >> > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 4 10:14:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A0E3A6D4B; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:14:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19FF28C46C for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:14:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.178 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.421, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4MVg1TQJSw8U for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:14:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30EE28C45D for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:14:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7286C5A91; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19384-05; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [?*???n?IPv6???1] (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A2A6C5A8F; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:15:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <00275A5B436CA441900CB10936742A385C1D98@FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com> References: <00275A5B436CA441900CB10936742A384EC92D@FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com> <39CA30D6-ABB6-47D9-BE46-52A565E78862@redback.com> <00275A5B436CA441900CB10936742A385C1D98@FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: From: Acee Lindem Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:14:59 -0400 To: "PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] IETF 71 OSPF WG Minutes X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org I'll add to the minutes that you stated you would like to see other solutions entertained. Thanks, Acee On Apr 4, 2008, at 12:22 PM, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee@redback.com] >> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:33 PM >> To: PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri >> Cc: OSPF List >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] IETF 71 OSPF WG Minutes >> >> >> On Mar 21, 2008, at 2:35 PM, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote: >> >>> acee, >>> >>>> Question regarding PW3 document (Andrew's draft) >>>> Acee - not a big fan >>>> Dave Ward - have the authors give another presentation >>>> Dimitri Papadimitriou - What is holdup? >>> >>> add: comments raised were addressed (e.g. possibility to segment >>> between >>> instances when solution will be made available by OSPF WG >> see Section >>> 5.3). >> >> Added. >> >>> >>>> Acee - Number of people didn't like it, but we are deferring to >>>> PW3 group. Now it seems that PW3 is supporting it so can bring >>>> it back to OSPF WG for consideration. >>> >>> side note: i would like to keep the discussion at the technical >>> level if >>> any remaining - ping-pong between working groups do not help solving >>> them. >> >> Added. >> >>> >>>> Multi-instance / Transport Instance Draft - Acee (See Slides) >>>> >>>> Will be pushing harder for this, discuss on list >>> >>> add (if my record is correct, you stated also that): the >> working group >>> will open the floor for alternative solutions once the problem >>> statement >>> will be refined further than a brief overview introduction (as it >>> is the >>> case in this v00 of the document). >> >> We won't stop anything from being proposed. Didn't I ask the that >> technical discussions be addressed in separate mail threads? > > the only record i saw in the minutes is the one mentioned here above. > reason why i asked to complement it as i think that discussion > needs to > happen (and urgently before pushing the docs themselves as you also > stated) > > thanks, > -dimitri. > >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> >>> >>> thanks, >>> -d. >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>> Behalf Of Acee Lindem >>>> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 5:23 PM >>>> To: OSPF List >>>> Subject: [OSPF] IETF 71 OSPF WG Minutes >>>> >>>> Please unicast corrections to me. If you want to discuss a >>>> specific topic, please start a thread on this list with the >>>> specific topic as the subject (this will make searching the >>>> archives easier). >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/ospf.txt >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Acee >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 4 12:56:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B9128C6CF; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9790A28C66B for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:56:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.337 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.228, BAYES_05=-1.11, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8MJlKgQKufl0 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7CCD28C73D for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m34Ju85Q002706; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 20:56:08 +0100 Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m34Ju6Iv002672; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 20:56:07 +0100 Message-ID: <003001c8968d$ea0217e0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "OSPF List" References: Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 20:56:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Cc: CCAMP List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPFversion 3 - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-10.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Just a couple of comments... === Section 1 s/proposes the addition of/defines/ === Section 4 Forgive me for not remembering this discussion... The draft says that we cannot use the Link ID sub-TLV "due to the protocol differences." It then says that the Link ID sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be included (implying that it MAY be included under certain circumstances) but MUST be ignored. 1. Does ignored mean "continue to be flooded" or "stripped from the LSA"? 2. Is it not possible to consider operating a GMPLS control plane in an IPv6 network where the routers use IPv6 addresses to communicate (so all control plane messages will be addressed using IPv6, and the router address will be IPv6 as described in Section 3) but where the data channel identifiers are assigned from an IPv4 address space? Recall that in GMPLS the interfaces used for OSPF exchange are not those used for data exchange. Whatever the answers, I think it would help if the reasons were clarified beyond "protocol differences." === Cheers, Adrian PS I wouldn't mind if you spelled my name right in the acks section :-) _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Sat Apr 5 08:50:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9FAD28C2CE; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 08:50:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BD9A3A6A96 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 08:50:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.206 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.393, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p0smCy1V7Ser for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 08:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53683A6BBD for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 08:50:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4537289F0D; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 08:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32451-08; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 08:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [?*???n?IPv6???1] (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE10A289F09; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 08:50:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <003001c8968d$ea0217e0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> References: <003001c8968d$ea0217e0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) X-Priority: 3 Message-Id: <90CE7EEE-1F2F-44DD-8B58-A5F9C6A49C4B@redback.com> From: Acee Lindem Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 11:50:25 -0400 To: Adrian Farrel X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: CCAMP List , OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPFversion 3 - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-10.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Adrian, Thanks for the review. On Apr 4, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > Just a couple of comments... > > === > Section 1 > s/proposes the addition of/defines/ Changed. > === > Section 4 > Forgive me for not remembering this discussion... > The draft says that we cannot use the Link ID sub-TLV "due to the > protocol > differences." The link-ID is cannot be used since, in the case of multi-access network, it contains the IPv4 address of the Designated Router (DR). OSPFv3 doesn't have this information. > It then says that the Link ID sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be included > (implying that > it MAY be included under certain circumstances) but MUST be ignored. This is the spirit of being conservative in what one sends and liberal in what one excepts. > 1. Does ignored mean "continue to be flooded" or "stripped from the > LSA"? In OSPF, only the originator should modify an LSA. So, it means neither. > 2. Is it not possible to consider operating a GMPLS control plane > in an IPv6 > network where the routers use IPv6 addresses to communicate (so all > control > plane messages will be addressed using IPv6, and the router address > will be > IPv6 as described in Section 3) but where the data channel > identifiers are > assigned from an IPv4 address space? Recall that in GMPLS the > interfaces > used for OSPF exchange are not those used for data exchange. I believe it is probable that IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist. However, OSPFv3 doesn't know the IPv4 address of the DR (at least it is not standardized). Hence, this isn't the right sub-TLV to reflect this topology. > > Whatever the answers, I think it would help if the reasons were > clarified > beyond "protocol differences." I'll expand this to describe the multi-access network case. Sound good? Thanks, Acee > === > > Cheers, > Adrian > > PS I wouldn't mind if you spelled my name right in the acks > section :-) > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Sat Apr 5 09:51:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A63428C301; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:51:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0014528C2CF for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:51:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.224, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SuXN8LRSy3qT for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5D728C3B3 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C1B2ED463; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07385-02; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [?????n?IPv6???1] (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F342ED462; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:51:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <90CE7EEE-1F2F-44DD-8B58-A5F9C6A49C4B@redback.com> References: <003001c8968d$ea0217e0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <90CE7EEE-1F2F-44DD-8B58-A5F9C6A49C4B@redback.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) X-Priority: 3 Message-Id: <02388B0D-3AB4-4954-B459-4FD88AB04440@redback.com> From: Acee Lindem Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:51:00 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: CCAMP List , OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPFversion 3 - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-10.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Adrian, How's this: *************** *** 342,348 **** The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub- TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID sub- TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be used in ! OSPFv3 due to the protocol differences between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined: --- 342,351 ---- The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub- TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID sub- TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be used in ! OSPFv3 since it defined to contain the IPv4 address of the Designated ! Router (DR) for multi-access interfaces. In contrast to OSPFv2, ! OSPFv3 always identifies a neighboring router by the Router ID (Refer ! to section 2.11 in [OSPFV3]). Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined: *************** I plan to wait until the WG last call has completed to submit the update. Thanks, Acee On Apr 5, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > Thanks for the review. > > On Apr 4, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Just a couple of comments... >> >> === >> Section 1 >> s/proposes the addition of/defines/ > > Changed. > > >> === >> Section 4 >> Forgive me for not remembering this discussion... >> The draft says that we cannot use the Link ID sub-TLV "due to the >> protocol >> differences." > > The link-ID is cannot be used since, in the case of multi-access > network, it contains the IPv4 address of the Designated Router (DR). > OSPFv3 doesn't have this information. > > >> It then says that the Link ID sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be included >> (implying that >> it MAY be included under certain circumstances) but MUST be ignored. > > This is the spirit of being conservative in what one sends and > liberal in what one excepts. > > > >> 1. Does ignored mean "continue to be flooded" or "stripped from the >> LSA"? > > In OSPF, only the originator should modify an LSA. So, it means > neither. > > > >> 2. Is it not possible to consider operating a GMPLS control plane >> in an IPv6 >> network where the routers use IPv6 addresses to communicate (so all >> control >> plane messages will be addressed using IPv6, and the router address >> will be >> IPv6 as described in Section 3) but where the data channel >> identifiers are >> assigned from an IPv4 address space? Recall that in GMPLS the >> interfaces >> used for OSPF exchange are not those used for data exchange. > > I believe it is probable that IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist. However, > OSPFv3 doesn't know the IPv4 address of the DR (at least it is not > standardized). Hence, this isn't the right sub-TLV to reflect this > topology. > > > >> >> Whatever the answers, I think it would help if the reasons were >> clarified >> beyond "protocol differences." > > I'll expand this to describe the multi-access network case. Sound > good? > > Thanks, > Acee > > > >> === >> >> Cheers, >> Adrian >> >> PS I wouldn't mind if you spelled my name right in the acks >> section :-) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ballotiemoko25@yahoo.fr Sat Apr 5 14:48:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0DF03A6C43 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 14:48:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.079 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3gcNmWRSxjMN for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 14:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web27412.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (web27412.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.146.177.188]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 843D43A6C9C for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 14:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 32091 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Apr 2008 21:49:04 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.fr; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=xARJ4FNJxQiOTpIy49p0bfvsiDC/a4TFnhUJaiSH9iDh1+HTr/TP7Yj5hSvxomJOBFd3QSVTUqchs/ICIvttfURcbbZXAj2JoM+beW/QRCo808SxbGk8MgH+TeqIvOtdME/919Hp5Irr32ZXe3tquZ3goNaA7Jlp9KZGqvq0jCQ=; X-YMail-OSG: dA9_E5gVM1kmtIIMpM8fd6sPAudmf.StIF_idecRnNF_ppC7kQepZX3z.LcgbIDZGrdepVy2u4PfNTZqdbRCRoaetUohaatWX5RfIQXEyW2wrFO21jDDyiPKs38- Received: from [213.136.119.251] by web27412.mail.ukl.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 05 Apr 2008 23:49:03 CEST Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 23:49:03 +0200 (CEST) From: tiemoko ballo Subject: RE : DEMANDE D AIDE To: djscream@tmail.com In-Reply-To: <229947.26517.qm@web28311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1879585972-1207432143=:31965" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <345325.31965.qm@web27412.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> --0-1879585972-1207432143=:31965 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit je me nomme ballo tiemoko je suis le responsable d'une association humanitaire qui s occupe des enfants orphelins de guerre . nous sommes situes en cote d'ivoire depuis le debut de la guerre et nous prenons en charge 150 enfants . mais aujourd hui il se trouve que nous sommes cofrontés à un probleme financier afin de venir en aide à ces enfants .n'ayant pas de sponsore c' est pourquoi nous sollicitons votre aide afin de nous aider à prendre en charge ces enfants . --------------------------------- Envoyé avec Yahoo! Mail. Plus de moyens pour rester en contact. --------------------------------- Envoyé avec Yahoo! Mail. Plus de moyens pour rester en contact. --------------------------------- Envoyé avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente. --0-1879585972-1207432143=:31965 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

 je me nomme ballo tiemoko je suis le responsable d'une association humanitaire qui s occupe des enfants orphelins de guerre .
nous sommes situes en cote d'ivoire depuis le debut de la guerre et nous prenons en charge 150 enfants .
mais aujourd hui il se trouve que nous sommes cofrontés à un probleme financier afin de venir en aide à ces enfants .n'ayant pas de sponsore c' est pourquoi nous sollicitons votre aide afin de nous aider à prendre en charge ces enfants .
Envoyé avec Yahoo! Mail.
Plus de moyens pour rester en contact.

Envoyé avec Yahoo! Mail.
Plus de moyens pour rester en contact.

Envoyé avec Yahoo! Mail.
Une boite mail plus intelligente. --0-1879585972-1207432143=:31965-- From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 6 04:15:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9F128C0DD; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 04:15:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EA03A6D2E for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 04:15:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.394 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QOyhg6fmvG9g for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 04:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02F628C10E for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 04:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7EE1EBF5F; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 04:15:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18137-02; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 04:15:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [*????n?IPv6???1] (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24AD5A4AF87; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 04:15:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <02388B0D-3AB4-4954-B459-4FD88AB04440@redback.com> References: <003001c8968d$ea0217e0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <90CE7EEE-1F2F-44DD-8B58-A5F9C6A49C4B@redback.com> <02388B0D-3AB4-4954-B459-4FD88AB04440@redback.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) X-Priority: 3 Message-Id: From: Acee Lindem Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 07:15:18 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: CCAMP List , OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPFversion 3 - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-10.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Alan Davey pointed out that I was missing the word "is" in my text. I went ahead with a more verbose explanation of the protocol differences. *************** *** 342,348 **** The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub- TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID sub- TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be used in ! OSPFv3 due to the protocol differences between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined: --- 342,356 ---- The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub- TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID sub- TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be used in ! OSPFv3 since it is defined to use the OSPFv2 identification for the ! Designated Router (DR) on multi-access networks. In OSPFv2, ! neighbors on point-to-point networks and virtual links are identified ! by their Router IDs while neighbors on broadcast, Non-Broadcast ! Multi-Access (NBMA), and Point-to-Multipoint links are identified by ! their IPv4 interface addresses (Refer to section 8.2 in [OSPFV2]). ! The IPv4 interface address is not known to OSPFv3. In contrast to ! OSPFv2, OSPFv3 always identifies neighboring routers by their Router ! IDs (Refer to section 2.11 in [OSPFV3]). Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined: *************** On Apr 5, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > Adrian, > > How's this: > > *************** > *** 342,348 **** > The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of > sub- > TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID > sub- > TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be > used in > ! OSPFv3 due to the protocol differences between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. > > Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined: > > --- 342,351 ---- > The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of > sub- > TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID > sub- > TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be > used in > ! OSPFv3 since it defined to contain the IPv4 address of the > Designated > ! Router (DR) for multi-access interfaces. In contrast to OSPFv2, > ! OSPFv3 always identifies a neighboring router by the Router ID > (Refer > ! to section 2.11 in [OSPFV3]). > > Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined: > > *************** > > I plan to wait until the WG last call has completed to submit the > update. > Thanks, > Acee > > On Apr 5, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > >> Hi Adrian, >> >> Thanks for the review. >> >> On Apr 4, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Just a couple of comments... >>> >>> === >>> Section 1 >>> s/proposes the addition of/defines/ >> >> Changed. >> >> >>> === >>> Section 4 >>> Forgive me for not remembering this discussion... >>> The draft says that we cannot use the Link ID sub-TLV "due to the >>> protocol >>> differences." >> >> The link-ID is cannot be used since, in the case of multi-access >> network, it contains the IPv4 address of the Designated Router (DR). >> OSPFv3 doesn't have this information. >> >> >>> It then says that the Link ID sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be included >>> (implying that >>> it MAY be included under certain circumstances) but MUST be ignored. >> >> This is the spirit of being conservative in what one sends and >> liberal in what one excepts. >> >> >> >>> 1. Does ignored mean "continue to be flooded" or "stripped from the >>> LSA"? >> >> In OSPF, only the originator should modify an LSA. So, it means >> neither. >> >> >> >>> 2. Is it not possible to consider operating a GMPLS control plane >>> in an IPv6 >>> network where the routers use IPv6 addresses to communicate (so all >>> control >>> plane messages will be addressed using IPv6, and the router address >>> will be >>> IPv6 as described in Section 3) but where the data channel >>> identifiers are >>> assigned from an IPv4 address space? Recall that in GMPLS the >>> interfaces >>> used for OSPF exchange are not those used for data exchange. >> >> I believe it is probable that IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist. However, >> OSPFv3 doesn't know the IPv4 address of the DR (at least it is not >> standardized). Hence, this isn't the right sub-TLV to reflect this >> topology. >> >> >> >>> >>> Whatever the answers, I think it would help if the reasons were >>> clarified >>> beyond "protocol differences." >> >> I'll expand this to describe the multi-access network case. Sound >> good? >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> >> >>> === >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Adrian >>> >>> PS I wouldn't mind if you spelled my name right in the acks >>> section :-) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSPF mailing list >>> OSPF@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 6 19:11:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D574F3A6DEA; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 19:11:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62E13A6DEA for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 19:11:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.105 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lgiDvCcaNqbE for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 19:11:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [61.144.161.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF873A6DC1 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2008 19:11:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JYX006LANEGFG@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:11:04 +0800 (CST) Received: from M55527 ([10.111.12.186]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JYX00ESGNECP8@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:11:04 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:11:00 +0800 From: Mach Chen To: Acee Lindem , Adrian Farrel Message-id: <200804071010599657422@huawei.com> Organization: Huawei MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Foxmail 6, 10, 201, 20 [cn] References: <079701c889ec$22702080$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Cc: CCAMP List , OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] CCAMP last call on advertisement of inter-AS TE links X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Acee, Thanks for your review and comments! Since there are no technical issues, I will update the I-D until the end of the WG last call. On 2008-04-04, at 22:49:13 Acee Lindem wrote: >I can't speak for the OSPF WG as a whole, but I have reviewed the >subject document and am very happy to see that the suggestion to use >separate inter-AS LSA types has been incorporated. I have no further >technical comments on the document and trust that the ccamp WG has >verified that this information encoding meets the TE requirements. >The usage described in sections 2.2 and 2.3 seem reasonable to me. > >I have the following editorial comments: > > 1. Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.2 - Both of these say "Use of the TE >Router ID is RECOMMENDED." I believe these should be respectively >replaced by "Use of the TE Router Address as specified in the Router >Address TLV [OSPF-TE] is RECOMMENDED." and "Use of the TE Router IPv6 >Address as specified in the IPv6 Router Address as specified in the >IPv6 Router Address TLV [OSPF-V3-TE] is RECOMMENDED." > 2. Section 3.2.1 states "This is because... that may operate in a >different address space;". If they are using a different address >space on the link between the ASes, then I'd expect there to be >problems with BGP as well :^) I'd suggest: > "Given that OSPF is an IGP and should only be utilized between >routers in the same routing domain, the OSPF specific Link ID and >Neighbor ID sub-TLVs are not applicable to inter-AS links.". > 3. You may want to expand some acronyms on their first use. For >example, "AS Boundary Router (ASBR)", "Link State Advertisement >(LSA)" and > "Path Computation Element (PCE)". > 4. [OSPFV3] is listed to as both a Normative and Informative >reference. > >Thanks, >Acee > >On Mar 19, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> You may recall providing useful review and feedback on >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas- >> te-extension-02.txt >> >> The authors believe that they have taken on board all the comments >> received >> from the OSPF working group and have updated the draft accordingly. >> >> >> CCAMP is holding a three week working group last call on this I-D >> along with >> its IS-IS partner document: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas- >> te-extension-00.txt >> >> These documents describe how to advertise the TE links that connect >> an AS to >> the outside world within the AS's IGP. As the drafts are at pains >> to point >> out, there is no proposal to advertise the TE information more >> widely (such >> as to other ASes). >> >> The last call will end at 12 noon BST on April 9th 2008. >> >> Please send your comments to the CCAMP list or direct to the CCAMP >> chairs. >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian and Deborah >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > Best regards, Mach Chen _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 7 05:56:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474A63A6C80; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 05:56:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DED13A6CD4 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 05:56:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.063 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.063 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.535, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VyQlEDVLHEFy for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 05:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB353A6BC1 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 05:56:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m37CuL8Q030834; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:56:22 +0100 Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m37CuINV030788; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:56:20 +0100 Message-ID: <02b201c898ae$c3a103e0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Acee Lindem" References: <003001c8968d$ea0217e0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe><90CE7EEE-1F2F-44DD-8B58-A5F9C6A49C4B@redback.com><02388B0D-3AB4-4954-B459-4FD88AB04440@redback.com> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:56:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Cc: CCAMP List , OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for Traffic Engineering Extensions toOSPFversion 3 - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-10.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Thanks Acee, That does the job. Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Acee Lindem" Cc: "CCAMP List" ; "OSPF List" Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for Traffic Engineering Extensions toOSPFversion 3 - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-10.txt > Alan Davey pointed out that I was missing the word "is" in my text. I > went ahead with a more verbose explanation of the protocol differences. > > *************** > *** 342,348 **** > The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub- > TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID > sub- > TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be > used in > ! OSPFv3 due to the protocol differences between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. > > Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined: > > --- 342,356 ---- > The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub- > TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID > sub- > TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be > used in > ! OSPFv3 since it is defined to use the OSPFv2 identification for the > ! Designated Router (DR) on multi-access networks. In OSPFv2, > ! neighbors on point-to-point networks and virtual links are > identified > ! by their Router IDs while neighbors on broadcast, Non-Broadcast > ! Multi-Access (NBMA), and Point-to-Multipoint links are > identified by > ! their IPv4 interface addresses (Refer to section 8.2 in [OSPFV2]). > ! The IPv4 interface address is not known to OSPFv3. In contrast to > ! OSPFv2, OSPFv3 always identifies neighboring routers by their > Router > ! IDs (Refer to section 2.11 in [OSPFV3]). > > Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined: > > *************** > > > On Apr 5, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > >> Adrian, >> >> How's this: >> >> *************** >> *** 342,348 **** >> The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of >> sub- >> TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID >> sub- >> TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be >> used in >> ! OSPFv3 due to the protocol differences between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. >> >> Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined: >> >> --- 342,351 ---- >> The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of >> sub- >> TLVs [TE]. All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID >> sub- >> TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be >> used in >> ! OSPFv3 since it defined to contain the IPv4 address of the >> Designated >> ! Router (DR) for multi-access interfaces. In contrast to OSPFv2, >> ! OSPFv3 always identifies a neighboring router by the Router ID >> (Refer >> ! to section 2.11 in [OSPFV3]). >> >> Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined: >> >> *************** >> >> I plan to wait until the WG last call has completed to submit the >> update. >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> On Apr 5, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: >> >>> Hi Adrian, >>> >>> Thanks for the review. >>> >>> On Apr 4, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Just a couple of comments... >>>> >>>> === >>>> Section 1 >>>> s/proposes the addition of/defines/ >>> >>> Changed. >>> >>> >>>> === >>>> Section 4 >>>> Forgive me for not remembering this discussion... >>>> The draft says that we cannot use the Link ID sub-TLV "due to the >>>> protocol >>>> differences." >>> >>> The link-ID is cannot be used since, in the case of multi-access >>> network, it contains the IPv4 address of the Designated Router (DR). >>> OSPFv3 doesn't have this information. >>> >>> >>>> It then says that the Link ID sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be included >>>> (implying that >>>> it MAY be included under certain circumstances) but MUST be ignored. >>> >>> This is the spirit of being conservative in what one sends and >>> liberal in what one excepts. >>> >>> >>> >>>> 1. Does ignored mean "continue to be flooded" or "stripped from the >>>> LSA"? >>> >>> In OSPF, only the originator should modify an LSA. So, it means >>> neither. >>> >>> >>> >>>> 2. Is it not possible to consider operating a GMPLS control plane >>>> in an IPv6 >>>> network where the routers use IPv6 addresses to communicate (so all >>>> control >>>> plane messages will be addressed using IPv6, and the router address >>>> will be >>>> IPv6 as described in Section 3) but where the data channel >>>> identifiers are >>>> assigned from an IPv4 address space? Recall that in GMPLS the >>>> interfaces >>>> used for OSPF exchange are not those used for data exchange. >>> >>> I believe it is probable that IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist. However, >>> OSPFv3 doesn't know the IPv4 address of the DR (at least it is not >>> standardized). Hence, this isn't the right sub-TLV to reflect this >>> topology. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Whatever the answers, I think it would help if the reasons were >>>> clarified >>>> beyond "protocol differences." >>> >>> I'll expand this to describe the multi-access network case. Sound >>> good? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> >>> >>>> === >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Adrian >>>> >>>> PS I wouldn't mind if you spelled my name right in the acks >>>> section :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OSPF mailing list >>>> OSPF@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSPF mailing list >>> OSPF@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 10 12:41:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0123C3A6966; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:41:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98DA13A6AC6 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:41:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.059 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.059 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id stMjYhl21iv4 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16E23A6966 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD683192B; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:42:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24698-09; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:42:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [*3???n?IPv6???1] (login005.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33043192A; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:42:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080410070002.2FAC33A6D2A@core3.amsl.com> References: <20080410070002.2FAC33A6D2A@core3.amsl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: <6CFC2583-D0A3-4A77-B048-5768FF1EF5DA@redback.com> From: Acee Lindem Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:42:05 -0400 To: Mach Chen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: CCAMP List , OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-03.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Mach, My comments have been addressed to my satisfaction. Depending on who reviews it, you may get requests to expand some more of the acronyms on first use during the Gen-ART review. Thanks, Acee On Apr 10, 2008, at 3:00 AM, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement > Plane Working Group of the IETF. > > > Title : OSPF Extensions in Support of Inter-AS > Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) > Traffic Engineering > Author(s) : M. Chen, R. Zhang > Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-03.txt > Pages : 18 > Date : 2008-04-09 > > This document describes extensions to the OSPF version 2 and 3 > protocols to support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and > Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) for multiple > Autonomous Systems (ASes). OSPF-TE v2 and v3 extensions are defined > for the flooding of TE information about inter-AS links which can be > used to perform inter-AS TE path computation. > > > > > No support for flooding TE information from outside the AS is > proposed or defined in this document. > > Conventions used in this document > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas- > te-extension-03.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > Content-Type: text/plain > Content-ID: <2008-04-09234919.I-D@ietf.org> _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 10 22:16:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2CC83A6AD5; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:16:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D23D3A6AD5 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:16:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.345 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tasfPhPZKJOR for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [61.144.161.55]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA463A6A91 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JZ500C11ANF5V@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:16:27 +0800 (CST) Received: from M55527 ([10.111.12.186]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JZ5008JVANDVL@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:16:27 +0800 (CST) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:16:26 +0800 From: Mach Chen To: Acee Lindem Message-id: <200804111316248393389@huawei.com> Organization: Huawei MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Foxmail 6, 10, 201, 20 [cn] References: <20080410070002.2FAC33A6D2A@core3.amsl.com> <6CFC2583-D0A3-4A77-B048-5768FF1EF5DA@redback.com> Cc: CCAMP List , OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-03.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Acee, On 2008-04-11, at 03:42:09 Acee Lindem wrote: >Hi Mach, >My comments have been addressed to my satisfaction. Depending on who >reviews it, you may get requests to expand some more of the acronyms >on first use during the Gen-ART review. OK, I will try again. Thanks, Mach >Thanks, >Acee >On Apr 10, 2008, at 3:00 AM, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement >> Plane Working Group of the IETF. >> >> >> Title : OSPF Extensions in Support of Inter-AS >> Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) >> Traffic Engineering >> Author(s) : M. Chen, R. Zhang >> Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-03.txt >> Pages : 18 >> Date : 2008-04-09 >> >> This document describes extensions to the OSPF version 2 and 3 >> protocols to support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and >> Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) for multiple >> Autonomous Systems (ASes). OSPF-TE v2 and v3 extensions are defined >> for the flooding of TE information about inter-AS links which can be >> used to perform inter-AS TE path computation. >> >> >> >> >> No support for flooding TE information from outside the AS is >> proposed or defined in this document. >> >> Conventions used in this document >> >> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", >> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this >> document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas- >> te-extension-03.txt >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >> Internet-Draft. >> Content-Type: text/plain >> Content-ID: <2008-04-09234919.I-D@ietf.org> > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Apr 11 04:54:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74FAD3A6BB6; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:54:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55B43A6BB6 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:54:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.061 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.061 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.538, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bSc9dBV+1Bqt for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183EA3A698D for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69CBA56CE1; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19375-02; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [?+???n?IPv6???1] (login005.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85EA756CE3; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:55:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200804111316248393389@huawei.com> References: <20080410070002.2FAC33A6D2A@core3.amsl.com> <6CFC2583-D0A3-4A77-B048-5768FF1EF5DA@redback.com> <200804111316248393389@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: From: Acee Lindem Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:55:12 -0400 To: Mach Chen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: CCAMP List , OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-03.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Mach, On Apr 11, 2008, at 1:16 AM, Mach Chen wrote: > Hi Acee, > > On 2008-04-11, at 03:42:09 Acee Lindem wrote: >> Hi Mach, >> My comments have been addressed to my satisfaction. Depending on who >> reviews it, you may get requests to expand some more of the acronyms >> on first use during the Gen-ART review. > > OK, I will try again. I'm happy with it as it is. I'd wait until the Gen-ART review since you may get additional comments. Thanks, Acee > > Thanks, > > Mach > >> Thanks, >> Acee >> On Apr 10, 2008, at 3:00 AM, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: >> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> directories. >>> This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement >>> Plane Working Group of the IETF. >>> >>> >>> Title : OSPF Extensions in Support of Inter-AS >>> Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) >>> Traffic Engineering >>> Author(s) : M. Chen, R. Zhang >>> Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-03.txt >>> Pages : 18 >>> Date : 2008-04-09 >>> >>> This document describes extensions to the OSPF version 2 and 3 >>> protocols to support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and >>> Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) for multiple >>> Autonomous Systems (ASes). OSPF-TE v2 and v3 extensions are defined >>> for the flooding of TE information about inter-AS links which can be >>> used to perform inter-AS TE path computation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No support for flooding TE information from outside the AS is >>> proposed or defined in this document. >>> >>> Conventions used in this document >>> >>> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", >>> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this >>> document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. >>> >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas- >>> te-extension-03.txt >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >>> Internet-Draft. >>> Content-Type: text/plain >>> Content-ID: <2008-04-09234919.I-D@ietf.org> >> > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 14 09:38:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5966028C330; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:38:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B2128C333; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:38:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.062 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.537, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C9Wfi2v6F4Tk; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:38:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288D528C32F; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:38:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98996844CF; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:38:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03750-03; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:38:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [?+???n?IPv6???1] (login005.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D1A86844CE; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:38:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: <240572E6-F0F5-4CF4-9CCC-A94EDEE6202A@redback.com> From: Acee Lindem Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:38:36 -0400 To: Christian Vogt X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: ospf@ietf.org, Gen-ART Mailing List , jmoy@sycamorenet.com Subject: Re: [OSPF] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-18 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Christian, Thanks taking the time to review this large document. See inline. On Apr 10, 2008, at 6:05 AM, Christian Vogt wrote: > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call > comments you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-18.txt > Reviewer: Christian Vogt > Review Date: April 10, 2008 > > Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed > Standard RFC. > > Comments: > > This document specifies OSPF for IPv6 networks. It is very well > written, clear overall, structured, and easily understandable. I > suggest this document to move forward in the publication process. > Few comments that should be addressed on this way: > > (1) The document, in particular abstract and introduction, is > ambiguous on whether (a) it describes extensions/modifications > to OSPF for IPv6 support, which would result in an OSPF version > for both IPv4 and IPv6, or whether (b) it is a separate OSPF > version specifically for IPv6. The first sentence of the > abstract implies (a). But later the abstract implies (b), > because it says that authentication mechanisms have been replaced > by IPv6-specific ones, leaving no authentications means for IPv4. > Then again, the increment of the OSPF version number specified in > section 2.7 indicates that (a) is the case. Please clarify the > purpose and content of the document early in the abstract and > introduction. As you surmised, it is (a). I'll make sure this is clear. > > (2) The document is very consistent WRT to introducing all acronyms > (by spelling them out) when they appear first. Do this for "LSA" > also. See 2nd paragraph of abstract. I added a bunch of these. I'll make sure I get this one and I'll check for other acronyms that require expansion. > > (3) In section 2.5, a special source address selection rule is > defined for virtual links. Is this rule needed specifically for > OSPF, or is it specific to virtual links? If the latter was the > case, would it make sense to define this rule more generally > in an > IPv6 document? I'd have to say this rule is specific to OSPFv3 virtual links. I think the meaning of "virtual link" varies depending on the context so I wouldn't try and define behavior beyond OSPFv3. For example, in one context a "virtual link" might imply a tunnel while it the OSPFv3 sense it is a multi-hop adjacency implying any OSPF path through the transit area can be used for backbone routing. Thanks, Acee > > Good luck with the publication, > - Christian > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 15 11:59:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86C228C134; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:59:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F913A6818; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:59:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.087 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.511, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LCtLRvb7fmce; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B42F3A6804; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFFBA45D20; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24028-02; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [?+???n?IPv6???1] (login005.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2AF570F2E6; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:59:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <240572E6-F0F5-4CF4-9CCC-A94EDEE6202A@redback.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: From: Acee Lindem Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:59:28 -0400 To: Christian Vogt X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: ospf@ietf.org, Gen-ART Mailing List , jmoy@sycamorenet.com Subject: Re: [OSPF] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-18 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1493019520==" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org --===============1493019520== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-59-198018481 --Apple-Mail-59-198018481 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hi Christian, Actually, I misstated the intent of the document below. OSPFv3 requires IPv6 and is specifically designed to over it. It can be extended to advertise reachability information for other address families (e.g., IPv4) as well and there is more than one draft stating how this should be done. However, this is not fully specified in this document. I've attempted to clarify this by including the version numbers in the first reference in the abstract and introduction. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-21.txt Thanks, Acee On Apr 14, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Christian Vogt wrote: > Hi Acee, > > thanks for addressing these comments. Your explanation regarding > virtual links is convincing, so the corresponding text should be > left as is in the document. > > Take care, > - Christian > > > > On Apr 14, 2008, at 19:38, Acee Lindem wrote: >> Hi Christian, >> Thanks taking the time to review this large document. See inline. >> >> On Apr 10, 2008, at 6:05 AM, Christian Vogt wrote: >> >>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) >>> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see >>> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html >>> >>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call >>> comments you may receive. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-18.txt >>> Reviewer: Christian Vogt >>> Review Date: April 10, 2008 >>> >>> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed >>> Standard RFC. >>> >>> Comments: >>> >>> This document specifies OSPF for IPv6 networks. It is very well >>> written, clear overall, structured, and easily understandable. I >>> suggest this document to move forward in the publication process. >>> Few comments that should be addressed on this way: >>> >>> (1) The document, in particular abstract and introduction, is >>> ambiguous on whether (a) it describes extensions/modifications >>> to OSPF for IPv6 support, which would result in an OSPF version >>> for both IPv4 and IPv6, or whether (b) it is a separate OSPF >>> version specifically for IPv6. The first sentence of the >>> abstract implies (a). But later the abstract implies (b), >>> because it says that authentication mechanisms have been >>> replaced >>> by IPv6-specific ones, leaving no authentications means for >>> IPv4. >>> Then again, the increment of the OSPF version number >>> specified in >>> section 2.7 indicates that (a) is the case. Please clarify the >>> purpose and content of the document early in the abstract and >>> introduction. >> >> As you surmised, it is (a). I'll make sure this is clear. >> >> >>> >>> (2) The document is very consistent WRT to introducing all acronyms >>> (by spelling them out) when they appear first. Do this for >>> "LSA" >>> also. See 2nd paragraph of abstract. >> >> I added a bunch of these. I'll make sure I get this one and I'll >> check for other acronyms that require expansion. >> >>> >>> (3) In section 2.5, a special source address selection rule is >>> defined for virtual links. Is this rule needed specifically >>> for >>> OSPF, or is it specific to virtual links? If the latter was >>> the >>> case, would it make sense to define this rule more generally >>> in an >>> IPv6 document? >> >> I'd have to say this rule is specific to OSPFv3 virtual links. I >> think the meaning of "virtual link" varies depending on the >> context so I wouldn't try and define behavior beyond OSPFv3. For >> example, in one context a "virtual link" might imply a tunnel >> while it the OSPFv3 sense it is a multi-hop adjacency implying any >> OSPF path through the transit area can be used for backbone routing. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> >> >>> >>> Good luck with the publication, >>> - Christian >>> >>> >> >> > --Apple-Mail-59-198018481 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Christian,
Actually, I misstated the intent of the document = below. OSPFv3 requires IPv6 and is specifically designed to over it. It = can be extended to advertise reachability information for other address = families (e.g., IPv4) as well and there is more than one draft stating = how this should be done. However, this is not fully specified in this = document. I've attempted to clarify this by including the version = numbers in the first reference in the abstract and = introduction.=A0

Thanks,
Acee

On Apr 14, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Christian Vogt = wrote:
Hi Acee,

thanks = for addressing these comments.=A0 = Your explanation regarding virtual links is convincing, so the = corresponding text should be left as is in the document.

Take = care,
- Christian



On Apr 14, 2008, at 19:38, Acee = Lindem wrote:
Hi = Christian,
Thanks taking the time to review = this large document. See inline.

On Apr 10, 2008, at 6:05 AM, = Christian Vogt wrote:
I have been = selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, = please see

Please = resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
comments you may receive.

=A0 = draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-18.txt
=A0 Christian = Vogt
Review Date:=A0 April 10, 2008

=A0 This draft is = ready for publication as a Proposed
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Standard = RFC.

Comments:

This document specifies OSPF for = IPv6 networks.=A0 It is = very well
written, clear overall, = structured, and easily understandable.=A0 I
suggest this document to move forward in the = publication process.
Few comments that should be = addressed on this way:
(1)=A0 The document, in particular = abstract and introduction, is
=A0=A0 =A0 ambiguous on whether = (a) it describes extensions/modifications
=A0=A0 =A0 to OSPF for IPv6 = support, which would result in an OSPF version
=A0=A0 =A0 = for both IPv4 and IPv6, or whether (b) it is a separate = OSPF
=A0=A0 =A0 version specifically = for IPv6.=A0 The first = sentence of the
=A0=A0 =A0 abstract implies = (a).=A0 But later the = abstract implies (b),
=A0=A0 =A0 because it says that = authentication mechanisms have been replaced
=A0=A0 =A0 = by IPv6-specific ones, leaving no authentications means for = IPv4.
=A0=A0 =A0 Then again, the = increment of the OSPF version number specified in
=A0=A0 =A0 = section 2.7 indicates that (a) is the case.=A0 Please clarify the
=A0=A0 =A0 = purpose and content of the document early in the abstract = and
=A0=A0 =A0 introduction.
=

As you surmised, it is (a). I'll make sure this is = clear.



(2)=A0 = The document is very consistent WRT to introducing all = acronyms
=A0=A0 =A0 (by spelling them out) = when they appear first.=A0 = Do this for "LSA"
=A0=A0 =A0 also.=A0 See 2nd paragraph of = abstract.

I added a bunch of these. I'll = make sure I get this one and I'll check for other acronyms that require = expansion.

=
(3)=A0 In section 2.5, a special = source address selection rule is
=A0=A0 =A0 defined for virtual = links.=A0 Is this rule = needed specifically for
=A0=A0 =A0 OSPF, or is it = specific to virtual links?=A0 = If the latter was the
=A0=A0 =A0 case, would it make = sense to define this rule more generally in an
=A0=A0 =A0 = IPv6 document?

I'd have to say this rule is = specific to OSPFv3 virtual links. I think the meaning of "virtual link" = varies depending on the context so I wouldn't try and define behavior = beyond OSPFv3. For example, in one context a "virtual link" might imply = a tunnel while it the OSPFv3 sense it is a multi-hop adjacency implying = any OSPF path through the transit area can be used for backbone = routing.

Thanks,




Good = luck with the publication,
- = Christian





=

= --Apple-Mail-59-198018481-- --===============1493019520== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf --===============1493019520==-- From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 17 11:12:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55A7728C580; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:12:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C2328C25D for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:12:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.111 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.488, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zn73b7pPlCki for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:12:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C3B28C592 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE506AE1E0; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10064-04; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [5&???g??p??`???$IPv6???1] (login005.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 606026AE1DE; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:13:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: <55FAFC06-9634-46AD-AD78-E0CF6CF2A6B8@redback.com> From: Acee Lindem Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:13:19 -0400 To: Acee Lindem X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: Vishwas Manral , Alan Davey , CCAMP List , OSPF List , Ross Callon Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3 - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-10.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org The WG last call has completed and I've posted a new version incorporating Adrian's comments. We'll move on to AD review with this draft. Thanks, Acee On Mar 31, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > We've WG last called this draft in the past and we're going to do > it again now. After some deliberations we've made the decision to > go forward with this document with the two existing implementations > and forgo the request for interoperability testing. The WG last > call will be begin today and end April 15, 2008 at 12:00 AM EDT. > Thanks, > Acee _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 22 07:43:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 405863A6AAB; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:43:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B033A6AAB for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:43:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GSzsuV0r1Swq for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:43:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BDD83A6B50 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:43:40 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=f8+etcOfEzmYNghRMpSFpBwUbvyEfPURVvlXjsQgK83CIETqWMOnXNo/JCXYKhaC; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [4.245.96.253] by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JoJiZ-0002Nm-Q4; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:43:36 -0400 Message-ID: <480E0857.4020705@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:46:31 -0800 From: Richard Ogier User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ospf@ietf.org X-ELNK-Trace: a073897a9455599e74bf435c0eb9d478325684188a82371ca87e60438ad320d872ddb83f9ce32da6350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.245.96.253 Subject: [OSPF] OSPF-MDR draft and software update X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org A new version of the OSPF-MDR draft is available. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-manet-mdr-01.txt The changes are listed below. In addition, new improved OSPF-MDR patches (version 1.00) for the Quagga implementation and GTNetS simulator are available at http://hipserver.mct.phantomworks.org/ietf/ospf/ These patches are compliant with the current draft. Also, the following website for OSPF-MDR includes a powerpoint presentation with new simulation results for up to 200 nodes: http://www.manet-routing.org/ Richard Changes for version 01 of the draft: o Simplified the definition of a routable neighbor so that a Full neighbor is not treated as a special case. o Modified the definition of a "backbone neighbor" slightly to ensure correct interoperation between routers that use adjacency reduction and routers that do not. (Such interoperation was never intended until recently.) o Changed the default value of AckInterval to 1 sec, and added a recommendation for the amount of time Acks should be delayed. o Added an appendix with simulation results. o Editorial changes. _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Apr 24 14:33:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04383A6A9D; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:33:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A447F3A6A9D for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:33:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PnbLm4rTjYQW for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:33:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B514A3A65A6 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:33:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCF8647D12E for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:33:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16922-09 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:33:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [?|???n?IPv6???1] (login005.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C38547D12D for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:33:53 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) To: OSPF List Message-Id: <23A7A4B5-F58E-4467-9520-BC6B263D1C73@redback.com> From: Acee Lindem Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:33:52 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Subject: [OSPF] OSPF Link-local Signaling - draft-ietf-ospf-lls-05.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1559519227==" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org --===============1559519227== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-164-984881983 --Apple-Mail-164-984881983 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed This version includes Vishwas Manral's and Jonathan Sadler's comments from the WG last call. Please take a look at the updated version. Unless there are any objections, I plan to send it to the ADs on April 30th, 2008. For you convenience, here is a link: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-lls-05.txt Thanks, Acee --Apple-Mail-164-984881983 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 This version includes Vishwas Manral's and Jonathan Sadler's comments = from the WG last call. Please take a look at the updated version. Unless = there are any objections, I plan to send it to the ADs on April 30th, = 2008.

For you convenience, here is a = link:=A0

= --Apple-Mail-164-984881983-- --===============1559519227== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf --===============1559519227==--