OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels
RFC 8687
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Roman Danyliw (was Discuss) No Objection
Thank you for addressing my Discuss item.
Warren Kumari No Objection
"NoObj" in the "I read the protocol action, and I trust the sponsoring AD so have no problem and / or this is outside my area of expertise or have no cycles" sense of the term. I ran out of cycles, and so am relying on the OpsDir review; thanks Tim.
Éric Vyncke No Objection
Alvara, Anton, Michael, Thank you for the work done for this document. Just curious about section 3: OSPFv2 routers send their IPv6 address(es) and OSPFv3 routers send their IPv4 address(es). But, what happens when OSPFv3 routers are multi-topology ? Should they also send their IPv6 address(es)? Of course, in this case, the issue fixed by your memo does not exist ;-) Probably worth mentioning anyway that OSPFv3 multi-topology does not need this feature. Regards, -éric
Alvaro Retana Recuse
I am a co-author.
(Martin Vigoureux; former steering group member) Yes
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) No Objection
Section 4 Do the two steps listed have to happen in a particular order in order to avoid breakage?
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ignas Bagdonas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
Sec 1: "This document updates [RFC5786] so that a router can also announce one or more local X-AF addresses using the corresponding Local Address sub-TLV. Routers using the Node Attribute TLV [RFC5786] can include non-TE enabled interface addresses in their OSPF TE advertisements, and also use the same sub-TLVs to carry X-AF information, facilitating the mapping described above." I wonder if this text should use normative language (s/can/MAY/) as this is the part that actually updates RFC5786, however, I didn't check the exact wording in RFC5786...
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection