From ospirit@ms48.hinet.net Sun Jun 1 17:05:57 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 153F53A68A3 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:05:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char AE hex): From: VIAGRA \256 Official Site [...] X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.677 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P=2.144, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_VERIZON_POOL=1.495, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.383, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_FROM_DRUGS=1.666, SARE_UNI=0.591, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 job8KsWd+gFi for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pool-71-182-10-133.chrlwv.east.verizon.net (pool-71-182-10-133.chrlwv.east.verizon.net [71.182.10.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 94DBD3A688B for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Polly Aurora (10.15.19.11) by pool-71-182-10-133.chrlwv.east.verizon.net (PowerMTA(TM) v3.2r4) id hfp40o68d77j47 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 08:05:54 -0500 Message-Id: <20080601030554.8837.qmail@pool-71-182-10-133.chrlwv.east.verizon.net> To: Subject: May 79% OFF From: VIAGRA ® Official Site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:05:51 -0700 (PDT)

Click to buy excellent watch for the lowest price!

To ensure delivery to your inbox (not bulk or junk folders), please add gucci@announcement.gucci.com to your address book.

Gucci invites you to shop our spring women’s shoe catalog

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy

Unable to view? Please go to http://www.gucci.com

You have subscribed to receive Gucci email communication. US Corporate Address: 685 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY, 10022, USA

From slie@www.avis.com Mon Jun 2 05:22:10 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 193B83A6846 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 05:22:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -24.881 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-24.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, TVD_FINGER_02=2.134, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_PH_SURBL=1.787, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 g5LKd9o8uWfh for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 05:22:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p0int2p0int.bg6-mt1k.link-plus.com (unknown [213.163.122.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 317273A687F for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 05:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [102.202.181.74] (helo=nrf) by p0int2p0int.bg6-mt1k.link-plus.com with smtp (Exim 4.62 (FreeBSD)) id 1K395H-0007RF-Au; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:24:19 +0200 Message-ID: <000301c8c4ab$3d913f80$4ab5ca66@nrf> From: To: Subject: 3 month supply to forget about failures in bed. Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:21:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4131.1600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4131.1600 Dont let your xlife go down due to lack of bluepills, get'em here! http://cqi.catsharp.com From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 2 09:24:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4245A3A69B3; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4A93A6A48 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:24:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.491 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xNeuHKJJOaNe for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 919C93A68D3 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CC6E4B0721; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22742-10; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [?????g??p???36?$IPv6???1] (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586474B0720; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:24:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <000001c8c2d1$7dd3b900$0101a8c0@china.huawei.com> References: <000001c8c2d1$7dd3b900$0101a8c0@china.huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: <4D054DAF-4ED9-4087-83DE-01CB9BD8750A@redback.com> From: Acee Lindem Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:24:10 -0400 To: Zhang Kui X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: Chen Jie , 'OSPF List' Subject: Re: [OSPF] About identifying the neighbor? 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="===============1192846268==" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org --===============1192846268== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5-40932736 --Apple-Mail-5-40932736 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hi Zhang, On May 30, 2008, at 11:50 PM, Zhang Kui wrote: > Hi all, > > In RFC2328, > > =93If the receiving interface connects to a broadcast > > network, Point-to-MultiPoint network or NBMA network the =20 > sender > > is identified by the IP source address found in the =20 > packet's IP > > header. If the receiving interface connects to a point-to-=20 > point > > network or a virtual link, the sender is identified by the > > Router ID (source router) found in the packet's OSPF header.=94 > > Why do we do this? Is it ok to identify the neighbor by the router =20 > id regardless of network types? > Yup - the router id must be unique in the OSPF routing domain. It is =20 used for router identification for all networks types in OSPFv3. Thanks, Acee > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf --Apple-Mail-5-40932736 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Hi Zhang,=A0

On May 30, 2008, at 11:50 PM, Zhang Kui = wrote:

Hi all,
In RFC2328,
=93If the receiving interface connects to a = broadcast
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 network, Point-to-MultiPoint network or = NBMA network the sender
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 is identified by the IP source address = found in the packet's IP
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 header.=A0 If the receiving interface = connects to a point-to-point
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 network or a virtual link, the sender = is identified by the
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Router ID (source router) found in the = packet's OSPF header.=94
Why do we do this? Is it ok to identify the neighbor by the = router id regardless of network = types?

Yup - the = router id must be unique in the OSPF routing domain. It is used for = router identification for all networks types in = OSPFv3.=A0

Thanks,

Acee

=A0
=A0

OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/ospf

= --Apple-Mail-5-40932736-- --===============1192846268== 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 --===============1192846268==-- From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 3 21:55:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14663A6BDB; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:55:25 -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 E2F513A6BDB for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:55:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.494 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ha-j-BnH4oNU for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [61.144.161.55]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732A13A67D7 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:55:17 -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 <0K1X00JWS9NQIJ@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:55:03 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.18]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K1X002H19NQ0W@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:55:02 +0800 (CST) Received: from shastri ([10.18.5.57]) by szxml03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0K1X00A0G9NHBS@szxml03-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:55:02 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:24:52 +0530 From: Pradeep Shastry To: 'OSPF List' Message-id: <003301c8c5ff$216a3500$3905120a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-index: AcjF/x96N+R7c428SAmTp3MEpB1sLA== Cc: tuby@huawei.com Subject: [OSPF] Question on Virtual Link 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="===============1263832013==" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1263832013== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_ar0UDAAxHn5qKDvUrm7Nqw)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_ar0UDAAxHn5qKDvUrm7Nqw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi, I have a question on virtual link. As per the RFC2328, under section 8.2 (Receiving protocol packets) The Area ID specified in the header must either: (1) Match the Area ID of the receiving interface. In this case, the packet has been sent over a single hop...... (2) Indicate the backbone. In this case, the packet has been sent over a virtual link. The receiving router must be an area border router, and the Router ID specified in the packet (the source router) must be the other end of a configured virtual link. The receiving interface must also attach to the virtual link's configured Transit area. If all of these checks succeed, the packet is accepted and is from now on associated with the virtual link (and the backbone area) Here the assumption is that OSPF should be enabled on the interface on which OSPF packet is received (In case of virtual link, to find out transit area id). Is this is correct? If this is correct then I can't have virtual link end points having multiple paths, some are through OSPF and some other through other protocols like static routes, in this case OSPF packets can be received through the interfaces which are not enabled with OSPF. Thanks and Regards -Pradeepa Shastry **************************************************************************** *********** This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! --Boundary_(ID_ar0UDAAxHn5qKDvUrm7Nqw) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Hi,

I have a question on virtual link. As per the RFC2328, under section 8.2 (Receiving protocol packets)

The Area ID specified in the header must either:

(1) Match the Area ID of the receiving interface. In this

case, the packet has been sent over a single hop………………

(2) Indicate the backbone. In this case, the packet has

been sent over a virtual link. The receiving router

must be an area border router, and the Router ID

specified in the packet (the source router) must be the

other end of a configured virtual link. The receiving

interface must also attach to the virtual link's

configured Transit area. If all of these checks

succeed, the packet is accepted and is from now on

associated with the virtual link (and the backbone

area)

Here the assumption is that OSPF should be enabled on the interface on which OSPF packet is received (In case of virtual link, to find out transit area id). Is this is correct? If this is correct then I can’t have virtual link end points having multiple paths, some are through OSPF and some other through other protocols like static routes, in this case OSPF packets can be received through the interfaces which are not enabled with OSPF.

Thanks and Regards

-Pradeepa Shastry

***************************************************************************************
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!

--Boundary_(ID_ar0UDAAxHn5qKDvUrm7Nqw)-- --===============1263832013== 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 --===============1263832013==-- From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 3 22:28:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A8D3A69BD; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:35 -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 C2D7F3A69BD for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, 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 Q8-szgZ9pKbg for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BF83A699E for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F154497B3; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:36 -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 01142-05; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (login005.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0FCA4497B1; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <003301c8c5ff$216a3500$3905120a@china.huawei.com> References: <003301c8c5ff$216a3500$3905120a@china.huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-Id: <268E208B-2B08-4E83-B80A-CDFCDBA71333@redback.com> From: Acee Lindem Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 01:28:33 -0400 To: Pradeep Shastry X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: 'OSPF List' , tuby@huawei.com Subject: Re: [OSPF] Question on Virtual Link 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="===============0102015742==" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org --===============0102015742== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-174395705 --Apple-Mail-1-174395705 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hi Pradeep, On Jun 4, 2008, at 12:54 AM, Pradeep Shastry wrote: > Hi, > > I have a question on virtual link. As per the RFC2328, under =20 > section 8.2 (Receiving protocol packets) > > > > The Area ID specified in the header must either: > > (1) Match the Area ID of the receiving interface. In this > > case, the packet has been sent over a single hop=85=85=85= =85=85=85 > > > > (2) Indicate the backbone. In this case, the packet has > > been sent over a virtual link. The receiving router > > must be an area border router, and the Router ID > > specified in the packet (the source router) must be =20= > the > > other end of a configured virtual link. The receiving > > interface must also attach to the virtual link's > > configured Transit area. If all of these checks > > succeed, the packet is accepted and is from now on > > associated with the virtual link (and the backbone > > area) > > > > Here the assumption is that OSPF should be enabled on the interface =20= > on which OSPF packet is received (In case of virtual link, to find =20 > out transit area id). Is this is correct? If this is correct then I =20= > can=92t have virtual link end points having multiple paths, some are =20= > through OSPF and some other through other protocols like static =20 > routes, in this case OSPF packets can be received through the =20 > interfaces which are not enabled with OSPF. > That is correct. A virtual link through an OSPF transit area will =20 only include intra-area paths within that transit area. Acee > > > Thanks and Regards > > -Pradeepa Shastry > > **********************************************************************=20= > ***************** > This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from =20 > HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose =20 > address is listed above. Any use of the information contained =20 > herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial =20 > disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than =20 > the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail =20= > in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately =20 > and delete it! > > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf --Apple-Mail-1-174395705 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Hi Pradeep,

On Jun 4, 2008, at 12:54 AM, Pradeep = Shastry wrote:

Hi,
I have a = question on virtual link. As per the RFC2328, under section 8.2 = (Receiving protocol packets)
=A0
The Area ID specified in the header must = either:
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (1) Match the Area ID of the receiving interface.=A0 = In this
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 case, the = packet has been sent over a single = hop=85=85=85=85=85=85
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0(2) Indicate the backbone.=A0 = In this case, the packet has
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 been sent over = a virtual link.=A0 The receiving router
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 must be an = area border router, and the Router ID
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 specified in = the packet (the source router) must be = the
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 other end of a = configured virtual link.=A0 The = receiving
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = interface must also attach to the virtual = link's
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = configured Transit area.=A0 If all of these checks
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 succeed, the = packet is accepted and is from now on
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 associated = with the virtual link (and the backbone
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = area)
=A0
Here the = assumption is that OSPF should be enabled on the interface on which OSPF = packet is received (In case of virtual link, to find out transit area = id). Is this is correct? If this is correct then I can=92t have virtual = link end points having multiple paths, some are through OSPF and some = other through other protocols like static routes, in this case OSPF = packets can be received through the interfaces which are not enabled = with OSPF.

That = is correct. A virtual link through an OSPF transit area will only = include intra-area paths within that transit = area.=A0

Acee

<= /span>

=A0

Thanks and = Regards

-Pradeepa = Shastry

************= **************************************************************************= *
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from = HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is = listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way = (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, = reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended = recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please = notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete = it!

=A0

OSPF mailing list

OSPF@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/ospf

= --Apple-Mail-1-174395705-- --===============0102015742== 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 --===============0102015742==-- From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 3 23:27:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ADF53A6AC6; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 23:27:54 -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 127CE3A69E0 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 23:27:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 qoCktEihyKGq for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 23:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og112.obsmtp.com (exprod7og112.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.177]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3DF53A68FC for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 23:27:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob112.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:27:41 PDT Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 23:27:41 -0700 Received: from nimbus-sf.juniper.net (nimbus-sf.juniper.net [172.16.12.139]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id m546Rex73389; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 23:27:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dkatz@juniper.net) Message-Id: <5055A1C8-9E5F-4375-BF4E-A5667A95EF55@juniper.net> From: Dave Katz To: Pradeep Shastry In-Reply-To: <003301c8c5ff$216a3500$3905120a@china.huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 00:27:40 -0600 References: <003301c8c5ff$216a3500$3905120a@china.huawei.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jun 2008 06:27:41.0713 (UTC) FILETIME=[178DB810:01C8C60C] Cc: 'OSPF List' , tuby@huawei.com Subject: Re: [OSPF] Question on Virtual Link 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="===============0959101388==" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org --===============0959101388== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-45-177942841 --Apple-Mail-45-177942841 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The fundamental issue is that a particular virtual link is a tuple, so you need some mechanism for mapping an =20 incoming packet (which has an address but no transit area encoded in =20 it) to that tuple. How you achieve this mapping, and under what deployment conditions, is =20= an implementation exercise, which as always has equal parts creativity =20= and danger. --Dave On Jun 3, 2008, at 10:54 PM, Pradeep Shastry wrote: > Hi, > I have a question on virtual link. As per the RFC2328, under section =20= > 8.2 (Receiving protocol packets) > > The Area ID specified in the header must either: > (1) Match the Area ID of the receiving interface. In this > case, the packet has been sent over a single hop=85=85=85= =85=85=85 > > (2) Indicate the backbone. In this case, the packet has > been sent over a virtual link. The receiving router > must be an area border router, and the Router ID > specified in the packet (the source router) must be =20= > the > other end of a configured virtual link. The receiving > interface must also attach to the virtual link's > configured Transit area. If all of these checks > succeed, the packet is accepted and is from now on > associated with the virtual link (and the backbone > area) > > Here the assumption is that OSPF should be enabled on the interface =20= > on which OSPF packet is received (In case of virtual link, to find =20 > out transit area id). Is this is correct? If this is correct then I =20= > can=92t have virtual link end points having multiple paths, some are =20= > through OSPF and some other through other protocols like static =20 > routes, in this case OSPF packets can be received through the =20 > interfaces which are not enabled with OSPF. > > Thanks and Regards > -Pradeepa Shastry --Apple-Mail-45-177942841 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The fundamental issue is that a = particular virtual link is a <router ID, transit area> tuple, so you = need some mechanism for mapping an incoming packet (which has an address = but no transit area encoded in it) to that = tuple.

How you achieve this mapping, and under what = deployment conditions, is an implementation exercise, which as always = has equal parts creativity and = danger.

--Dave

On Jun = 3, 2008, at 10:54 PM, Pradeep Shastry wrote:

I have a question on virtual = link. As per the RFC2328, under section 8.2 (Receiving protocol = packets)
The = Area ID specified in the header must = either:
Match the Area ID of = the receiving interface. In = this

The = receiving
If all of these = checks
Here the assumption is that = OSPF should be enabled on the interface on which OSPF packet is received = (In case of virtual link, to find out transit area id). Is this is = correct? If this is correct then I can=92t have virtual link end points = having multiple paths, some are through OSPF and some other through = other protocols like static routes, in this case OSPF packets can be = received through the interfaces which are not enabled with = OSPF.
Thanks and = Regards
-Pradeepa = Shastry

= --Apple-Mail-45-177942841-- --===============0959101388== 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 --===============0959101388==-- From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 4 08:32:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C417A28C187; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:32:16 -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 4F6F228C15E for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:32:15 -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 EGeFlW1c1xrh for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 426F928C13E for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:32:14 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=ACjC50UnwuBWNlm5876ubGsL0t4YEDHm1zK+TfI0Ue4/+SBhI/GEek7tdvhuqJyw; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [4.246.93.14] by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1K3uyH-0006k6-BC; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:32:18 -0400 Message-ID: <4846C42B.7050903@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:34:51 -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: Pradeep Shastry References: <003301c8c5ff$216a3500$3905120a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <003301c8c5ff$216a3500$3905120a@china.huawei.com> X-ELNK-Trace: a073897a9455599e74bf435c0eb9d478f1b5541751becfffc96fd7ee05104b9e4472f244de654678350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.246.93.14 Cc: 'OSPF List' , tuby@huawei.com Subject: Re: [OSPF] Question on Virtual Link 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="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org I will attempt a different answer to your question, which may or may not correctly address your concern. > Here the assumption is that OSPF should be enabled on the interface on = > which OSPF packet is received (In case of virtual link, to find out = > transit area id). Is this is correct? If this is correct then I can=92t = > have virtual link end points having multiple paths, some are through = > OSPF and some other through other protocols like static routes, in = > this case OSPF packets can be received through the interfaces which = > are not enabled with OSPF. If you have a static route between two backbone routers, it can be configured as a point-to-point link in OSPF (using tunnel encapsulation). However, in this case, you would not need a virtual link since you have a direct link between the two backbone routers. Therefore, if I am correctly interpreting your concern, the answer might be that you can achieve your goal using tunneling instead of a virtual link. Richard Pradeep Shastry wrote: > Hi, > > I have a question on virtual link. As per the RFC2328, under section = > 8.2 (Receiving protocol packets) > > The Area ID specified in the header must either: > > (1) Match the Area ID of the receiving interface. In this > > case, the packet has been sent over a single hop=85=85=85=85=85=85 > > (2) Indicate the backbone. In this case, the packet has > > been sent over a virtual link. The receiving router > > must be an area border router, and the Router ID > > specified in the packet (the source router) must be the > > other end of a configured virtual link. The receiving > > interface must also attach to the virtual link's > > configured Transit area. If all of these checks > > succeed, the packet is accepted and is from now on > > associated with the virtual link (and the backbone > > area) > > Here the assumption is that OSPF should be enabled on the interface on = > which OSPF packet is received (In case of virtual link, to find out = > transit area id). Is this is correct? If this is correct then I can=92t = > have virtual link end points having multiple paths, some are through = > OSPF and some other through other protocols like static routes, in = > this case OSPF packets can be received through the interfaces which = > are not enabled with OSPF. > > Thanks and Regards > > -Pradeepa Shastry > > *************************************************************************= ************** > This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from = > HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address = > is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any = > way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, = > reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended = > recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, = > please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >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 c.kopp@glantschnig.co.at Fri Jun 6 14:35:46 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 525253A6911; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 14:35:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -49.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-49.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FB_REPLICA_ROLEX=3.157, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FS_REPLICA=0.994, FS_REPLICAWATCH=10.357, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, REPLICA_WATCH=3.396, SARE_RECV_SPEEDY_AR=0.808, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_GENREP=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 H-w-lARVfIeM; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 14:35:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 190-172-167-217.speedy.com.ar (unknown [190.172.167.217]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AE6953A680D; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 14:35:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 253.226.136.70 by smtp.190.172.167.217; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:35:30 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Herminia Mora" Reply-To: "Herminia Mora" To: multi6-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: New replica watches delivered fast Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:35:30 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit When it comes down to getting a replica Rolex watch, there is just one place that offers its visitors and customers the highest quality available: Prestige Replicas. This unparalleled online store specializes in top of the line replica watches with unsurpassed performance, and bearing every marking that the genuine timepieces have. Every replica watch that Prestige Replicas carries, is made of solid stainless steel and features a sapphire crystal glass. What's more, every Rolex in store displays the green Rolex sticker with model number and logo on it. Just because you're buying a replica, don't settle for a low quality product. There are only a handful of online stores that offer the highest quality Rolex replica watches and Prestige Replicas is among them, and with the lowest available prices! http://dotekymeryz86.blogspot.com/ From c.riegler@lichtagent.co.at Fri Jun 6 20:11:20 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 5DD4B3A67EC; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:11:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -67.388 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-67.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FB_QUALITY_REPLICA=10.357, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FS_REPLICA=0.994, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPEEDY_AR=0.808, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_HIQLT=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 2NwUXhdMvB14; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 190-51-127-62.speedy.com.ar (unknown [190.51.127.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B323B3A67AA; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:11:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 112.22.92.80 by smtp.190.51.127.62; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:11:19 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Darcy Lyons" Reply-To: "Darcy Lyons" To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Replicas will save you thousands Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:11:19 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Prestige Replicas is now bigger and better than ever before! I'm sure you're familiar with this popular replica store, so I'm glad to announce that Prestige Replicas has been completely redesigned and now offers not only the highest quality replica watches but also handbags and jewelry! In addition, they're running a 15% special these days when you buy two watches! There's never been a better time to buy a replica watch, especially a Tag Heuer! With prices as low as $200, and the store unmatched privacy assurance guarantee, I'm sure you won't want to wait to get your superior quality Tag Heuer replica! http://kahyfyrycic50.blogspot.com/ From bengalfinancial@bellnet.ca Sat Jun 7 06:57:54 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 514583A6AAE for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 06:57:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.298 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.394, BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5] 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 ucgajV1oRVhN for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 06:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomts28-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts28-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.102]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739163A69E5 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 06:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca ([67.69.240.39]) by tomts28-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20080607135755.WVDC1835.tomts28-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca> for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 09:57:55 -0400 Message-Id: <6u5k2v$1fg57t@toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca> X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjsgAPctSkjR4q+G/2dsb2JhbACKD4h3lxU Received: from tofep2.bellnexxia.net (HELO smtp.bellnexxia.net) ([209.226.175.134]) by toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca with SMTP; 07 Jun 2008 09:57:55 -0400 X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.11 (webedge20-101-194-20030622) X-Originating-IP: [121.120.174.6] From: Dell Electronics Award Company Reply-To: brown_williams@ Organization: Dell Electronics Award Company To: Subject: Lucky Winner 2008!! Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 9:57:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We are delighted to inform you that you are one of the THREE LUCKY WINNERS whose e-mail address won the sum payout of 500,000 pounds in the DELL ELECTRONICS SEASONAL AWARD. Contact Person:Brown .J. Williams Email: brown_williams@live.com Full Names:.. Tel:.. Sex... Age:.. Occupation:.. From jschoeny@hcinet.net Sat Jun 7 09:04:28 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 358003A682D for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 09:04:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.651 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.635, BAYES_50=0.001, LOTTERY_PH_004470=2.015] 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 KWxu+ijPYA8L for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 09:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from invictus.bright.net (invictus.bright.net [209.143.0.12]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74CF63A67E9 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 09:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.30] by invictus.bright.net with SMTP id <20080607141730.CCCL4203.invictus@[192.168.1.30]>; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 10:17:30 -0400 X-Originating-IP: [213.185.118.238] From: The Halen Foundation Reply-To: t-halenfound101@hotmail.co.uk Organization: The Halen Foundation To: info@thehalenfoundation.org Subject: Attn Winner Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 10:17:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20080607141730.CCCL4203.invictus@[192.168.1.30]> Attn: Your e-mail address just won you £950,000.00GBP on our June 2008 Grant/Donation Award held by The Halen Foundation. To claim your prize, contact Sir Tony Lawrence at Executive Secretary, Sir Tony Lawrence Email: t-halenfound101@hotmail.co.uk Tel: +44 70457 34442 with: 1.Name : 2.Address: 3.Age/Sex: 4.Phone / fax Number: 5.Country Of Residence. Regards, Mrs. Helen Smith The Halen Foundation From cad-news@inter-networld.de Sun Jun 8 15:17:14 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 60A1A3A68C5; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:17:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -51.34 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-51.34 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FB_QUALITY_REPLICA=10.357, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_BAYES_5x7=0.6, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_HIQLT=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 PLn-eIVd21ag; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 131-130-22-190.adsl.terra.cl (131-130-22-190.adsl.terra.cl [190.22.130.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 95CE43A685C; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:17:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 136.248.78.222 by smtp.190.22.130.131; Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:17:30 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Candy Mcmullen" Reply-To: "Candy Mcmullen" To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: You and a Rolex watch Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:17:30 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Prestige Replicas is a one of a kind store: the online place where you can find the highest quality replica watches at the best prices in the world! Forget about flying to China to get a mockup Cartier watch... You can now get European quality Cartier replicas at deeply discounted prices at Prestige Replicas! The best part is that our watches are so finely crafted that even the most experienced connoisseur would have a hard time telling our watches from the real deal. http://gypekyrorad52.blogspot.com/ Visit Prestige Replicas today and discover a wide range of top quality Cartier replica watches offered at unbelievable prices, with a 15% discount when you buy two! http://gypekyrorad52.blogspot.com/ From c.heil@egz-landau.de Mon Jun 9 00:51:17 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 6A6A13A688E; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 00:51:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -45.657 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-45.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FB_QUALITY_REPLICA=10.357, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FS_REPLICA=0.994, FS_REPLICAWATCH=10.357, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_HIQLT=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5F=0.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666, SARE_SUB_PERFECT=0.725, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 gXXTnsFFMK6Q; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 00:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 19-115-188-190.cab.prima.net.ar (unknown [190.188.115.19]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B0833A6B29; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 00:50:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 240.116.192.211 by smtp.190.188.115.19; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:51:04 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Elizabeth Maurer" Reply-To: "Elizabeth Maurer" To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Replica watch is a perfect gift Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:51:04 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Have you always wanted a Rolex, but don't want to pay high prices for a brand name watch? Then you need to visit Prestige Replicas, a website dedicated exclusively to high quality replicas, with the most extensive inventory on the web and a proven track record of satisfied customers. http://wobusygugot37.blogspot.com/ Prestige Replicas offers hundreds of Rolex replica watches starting just above $100, and during this spring season, their already low prices have been slashed by 15 percent if you buy two or more watches! No matter which model Rolex you choose, their 15% discount applies to them all! But don't let this limited time offer go by... spring is ending and it's time to impress your friends with a realistic, high quality Rolex replica watch, that will look and perform just like the real deal! http://wobusygugot37.blogspot.com/ From c.zwijsen@leprastichting.nl Mon Jun 9 08:10:53 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 B1D513A69AA; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:10:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -72.276 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-72.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HOST_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 x5fx7qrCoOh9; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from r190-134-130-109.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy (r190-134-130-109.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [190.134.130.109]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E8223A6C99; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:10:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 244.2.152.55 by smtp.190.134.130.109; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:10:50 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Stefan Babcock" Reply-To: "Stefan Babcock" To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Spring quality watches offer Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:10:50 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit An IWC watch is a uniquely handcrafted time piece that combines a classical element with a timeless elegance. Its appeal comes from their traditional beauty and their superb performance. But this sophistication has always come with a high price tag. Except of course, when you buy an IWC replica. And Prestige Replicas has dozens of IWC replica watches at prices so incredibly low that you can rest assured they won't last long! So, why not head over to Prestige Replicas right now and take a look at their IWC watches? After all, isn't it time you wore a splendid wristwatch without having to spend a fortune? http://bivitewufyp52.blogspot.com/ From cucubau@google.com Mon Jun 9 16:04:56 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 A5C103A6960 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:04:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -55.341 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-55.341 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AV:HTML.Phishing.Bank-473=0.1, BAYES_80=2, DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24=2.189, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML=0.001, FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS=0.001, HELO_EQ_VN=1.335, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE=0.82, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RDNS_NONE=0.1, RELAY_IS_220=2.118, SARE_RECV_IP_220116=1.666, TVD_PH_SUBJ_ACCOUNTS_POST=2.996, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_PH_SURBL=1.787, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 sGYnyG573EMv for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.blog.com.vn (unknown [220.231.104.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366ED3A6907 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from User ([220.120.118.138]) (authenticated user admin@blog.com.vn) by mail.blog.com.vn (Kerio MailServer 6.4.1); Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:58:33 +0700 Reply-To: From: "Bank Of America" Subject: Re-confirm your account information (Message ID HN-837-382) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:59:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-Id: <20080609230456.366ED3A6907@core3.amsl.com> To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Your Online Banking is Blocked

Because of unusual number of invalid login attempts on you account, we had to believe that, their might be some security problem on your account. So we have decided to put an extra verification process to ensure your identity and your account security. Please click on sign in to Online Banking to continue to the verification process and ensure your account security. It is all about your security. Thank you, and visit the customer service section.

Bank of America, N.A. Member FDIC. Equal Housing Lender

From cucubau@google.com Mon Jun 9 16:05:01 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 205AD3A6960 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:05:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -55.341 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-55.341 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AV:HTML.Phishing.Bank-473=0.1, BAYES_80=2, DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24=2.189, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML=0.001, FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS=0.001, HELO_EQ_VN=1.335, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE=0.82, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RDNS_NONE=0.1, RELAY_IS_220=2.118, SARE_RECV_IP_220116=1.666, TVD_PH_SUBJ_ACCOUNTS_POST=2.996, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_PH_SURBL=1.787, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 dSVKuexSta3J for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.blog.com.vn (unknown [220.231.104.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F773A6907 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from User ([220.120.118.138]) (authenticated user admin@blog.com.vn) by mail.blog.com.vn (Kerio MailServer 6.4.1); Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:58:33 +0700 Reply-To: From: "Bank Of America" Subject: Re-confirm your account information (Message ID HN-837-382) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:59:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-Id: <20080609230500.A6F773A6907@core3.amsl.com> To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Your Online Banking is Blocked

Bank of America, N.A. Member FDIC. Equal Housing Lender

From c.stummer@snr-solutions.com Mon Jun 9 16:12:49 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 175E73A6879; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:12:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -65.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-65.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FB_REPLICA_ROLEX=3.157, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FS_REPLICA=0.994, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, REPLICA_WATCH=3.396, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 UMjZXyZHTwFK; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc-188-127-86-200.cm.vtr.net (pc-188-127-86-200.cm.vtr.net [200.86.127.188]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 50A473A67D4; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:11:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 148.52.120.96 by smtp.200.86.127.188; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:12:18 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Marion Holliday" Reply-To: "Marion Holliday" To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Get one of these awesome replicas Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:12:18 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit When it comes down to getting a replica Rolex watch, there is just one place that offers its visitors and customers the highest quality available: Prestige Replicas. This unparalleled online store specializes in top of the line replica watches with unsurpassed performance, and bearing every marking that the genuine timepieces have. Every replica watch that Prestige Replicas carries, is made of solid stainless steel and features a sapphire crystal glass. What's more, every Rolex in store displays the green Rolex sticker with model number and logo on it. Just because you're buying a replica, don't settle for a low quality product. There are only a handful of online stores that offer the highest quality Rolex replica watches and Prestige Replicas is among them, and with the lowest available prices! http://gyzywarezax23.blogspot.com/ From c.preissner@tv1.de Tue Jun 10 04:35:26 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 3C5E03A68E1; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:35:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -55.816 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-55.816 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FB_REPLICA_ROLEX=3.157, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FS_REPLICA=0.994, FS_REPLICAWATCH=10.357, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, REPLICA_WATCH=3.396, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_GENREP=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666, SARE_SUB_PERFECT=0.725, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 i4iCMYB6XDE6; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:35:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ppp-42-170.32-151.iol.it (ppp-42-170.32-151.iol.it [151.32.170.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1EE603A6A3E; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:35:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 199.12.247.175 by smtp.151.32.170.42; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:35:31 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Bobbie Bryson" Reply-To: "Bobbie Bryson" To: multi6-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Replica watch is a perfect gift Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:35:31 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit When it comes down to getting a replica Rolex watch, there is just one place that offers its visitors and customers the highest quality available: Prestige Replicas. This unparalleled online store specializes in top of the line replica watches with unsurpassed performance, and bearing every marking that the genuine timepieces have. Every replica watch that Prestige Replicas carries, is made of solid stainless steel and features a sapphire crystal glass. What's more, every Rolex in store displays the green Rolex sticker with model number and logo on it. Just because you're buying a replica, don't settle for a low quality product. There are only a handful of online stores that offer the highest quality Rolex replica watches and Prestige Replicas is among them, and with the lowest available prices! http://gusitihoryv87.blogspot.com/ From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jun 10 18:18:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884DD3A68AB; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:18:25 -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 C90163A68AB for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:18:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 7ha5vWDfhO3w for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:18:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com (exprod7og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.165]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E642F3A6853 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:18:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.228.6]) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:18:45 PDT Received: from p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.46]) by p-emsmtp01.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:18:06 -0700 Received: from emailsmtp55.jnpr.net ([172.24.18.132]) by p-emlb01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:18:06 -0700 Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:18:06 -0700 Received: from [172.24.24.238] (nsheth-xp-lt.jnpr.net [172.24.24.238]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id m5B1I6x89122 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:18:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nsheth@juniper.net) Message-ID: <484F27CD.6070007@juniper.net> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:18:05 -0700 From: Nischal Sheth User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OSPF List X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2008 01:18:06.0263 (UTC) FILETIME=[009D3C70:01C8CB61] Subject: [OSPF] link-LSA for ospfv3 multi area adjacency 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 Section 4 of RFC 5185 says that a link-LSA SHOULD NOT be advertised for a ospfv3 multi-area adjacency. Instead, it suggests that the neighbor's link local address can be gleaned from hello packets. It appears to me that this won't work for multi-area adjacencies in non-IPv6 AFs. Any thoughts on loosening this recommendation and generating link-LSAs for multi-area adjacencies in general or at least for non-IPv6 AFs? Any other ideas to solve the above problem? Thanks, Nischal _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 11 01:03:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA41A3A6879; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:03:27 -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 6D9DD3A67AD for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:03:26 -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 O8kVJ0-Dvkim for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:03:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440EE3A68DB for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:03:25 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m5B83lW22065; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:03:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [144.254.245.169] (dhcp-bts02-144-254-245-169.cisco.com [144.254.245.169]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m5B83gA27383; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:03:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <484F86DE.5000908@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:03:42 +0200 From: Peter Psenak User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, zh, ja, ko, de, ar, ru, fr, es, it, pt MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nischal Sheth References: <484F27CD.6070007@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <484F27CD.6070007@juniper.net> Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] link-LSA for ospfv3 multi area adjacency 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 Nischal, Nischal Sheth wrote: > Section 4 of RFC 5185 says that a link-LSA SHOULD NOT be advertised for a > ospfv3 multi-area adjacency. Instead, it suggests that the neighbor's link > local address can be gleaned from hello packets. > > It appears to me that this won't work for multi-area adjacencies in non-IPv6 > AFs. Any thoughts on loosening this recommendation and generating link-LSAs > for multi-area adjacencies in general or at least for non-IPv6 AFs? 5185 is based on the current OSPFv3 spec that supports only a single AF. If the multi AF support in OSPFv3 requires changes to the 5158, it should be done as a part of the OSPFv3 multi-AF effort. thanks, Peter > > Any other ideas to solve the above problem? > > Thanks, > Nischal > > _______________________________________________ > 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 johnw.macinnis@ns.sympatico.ca Wed Jun 11 04:54:50 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 E314A3A6838 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:54:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.015 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.015 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_57=0.6, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803] 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 oPRw84FzpeJm for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from simmts6-srv.bellnexxia.net (simmts6-qfe0.srvr.bell.ca [206.47.199.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5A93A67ED for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:54:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from simip9.srvr.bell.ca ([206.47.199.87]) by simmts6-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20080611115509.YZYJ1677.simmts6-srv.bellnexxia.net@simip9.srvr.bell.ca> for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:55:09 -0400 Message-Id: <6qh28a$1vr28m@alconsout.srvr.bell.ca> X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AprlAGBXT0jOL8eh/2dsb2JhbACBOCOIN4EKhheBZZlo Received: from simfep6.bellnexxia.net (HELO smtp8.sympatico.ca) ([206.47.199.161]) by alconsout.srvr.bell.ca with SMTP; 11 Jun 2008 07:58:05 -0400 X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.10 (webedge20-101-191-20030113) X-Originating-IP: [81.199.180.78] From: UK LOTTERY INTL. Reply-To: informationoffice@y7mail.com To: Subject: Confirm Your Winnings!!! Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 7:55:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable UK ON-LINE LOTTERY BOARD ONLINE NOTIFICATION = Contact Mr.George W.Blai for the claim of =A3850.000pounds which you have= won in the UK-LOTTERY 2008 PROGRAM. Provide your Names,Address,Age,Occupation, Tel,Country.Email:blairgeorge62@yahoo.co.uk Sincerely, Mrs.Rose Blair. UK LOTTERY BOARD From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 11 13:41:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB7E3A6881; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:41:26 -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 AF9E13A6881 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:41:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 Jbp33Z5wuzGN for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og104.obsmtp.com (exprod7og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEEA43A6867 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.228.6]) by exprod7ob104.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:41:13 PDT Received: from p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.47]) by p-emsmtp01.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:40:57 -0700 Received: from emailsmtp56.jnpr.net ([172.24.60.77]) by p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:40:56 -0700 Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp56.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:40:56 -0700 Received: from [172.24.24.238] (nsheth-xp-lt.jnpr.net [172.24.24.238]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id m5BKeux36078 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:40:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nsheth@juniper.net) Message-ID: <48503858.10200@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:40:56 -0700 From: Nischal Sheth User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OSPF List References: <484F27CD.6070007@juniper.net> <484F86DE.5000908@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <484F86DE.5000908@cisco.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2008 20:40:56.0572 (UTC) FILETIME=[72F583C0:01C8CC03] Subject: Re: [OSPF] link-LSA for ospfv3 multi area adjacency 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 Peter Psenak wrote: > Nischal, > > Nischal Sheth wrote: >> Section 4 of RFC 5185 says that a link-LSA SHOULD NOT be advertised for a >> ospfv3 multi-area adjacency. Instead, it suggests that the neighbor's >> link >> local address can be gleaned from hello packets. >> >> It appears to me that this won't work for multi-area adjacencies in >> non-IPv6 >> AFs. Any thoughts on loosening this recommendation and generating >> link-LSAs >> for multi-area adjacencies in general or at least for non-IPv6 AFs? > > 5185 is based on the current OSPFv3 spec that supports only a single AF. > If the multi AF support in OSPFv3 requires changes to the 5158, it > should be done as a part of the OSPFv3 multi-AF effort. > Hi Peter, Fair enough. This sounds like a good course of action. It seems that the most straightforward solution would be to override the RFC 5185 behavior for non-IPv6 AFs and generate link-LSAs for multi-area adjacencies. These must contain only the link local address and no other prefixes. Could the authors of the multi-AF draft please address this issue in the next version? Thanks, Nischal _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 11 16:42:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D156F3A6A7F; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:42:55 -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 764013A697C; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:42:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -16.88 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15] 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 hIPez1cm2wfl; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bosco.isi.edu (bosco.isi.edu [128.9.168.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F50D3A684E; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bosco.isi.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 36E591364FD; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:43:17 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20080611234317.36E591364FD@bosco.isi.edu> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ospf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [OSPF] RFC 5187 on OSPFv3 Graceful Restart 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: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5187 Title: OSPFv3 Graceful Restart Author: P. Pillay-Esnault, A. Lindem Status: Standards Track Date: June 2008 Mailbox: ppe@cisco.com, acee@redback.com Pages: 7 Characters: 14860 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-graceful-restart-08.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5187.txt This document describes the OSPFv3 graceful restart. The OSPFv3 graceful restart is identical to that of OSPFv2 except for the differences described in this document. These differences include the format of the grace Link State Advertisements (LSAs) and other considerations. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is a product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 11 17:46:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03E03A68ED; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:46:30 -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 826C43A68ED; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:46:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.038 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, 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 pSW-EUxnhb58; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EA853A67A4; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m5C0knmC004638; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:46:49 +0100 Received: from your029b8cecfe (reverse.gdsz.cncnet.net [210.21.226.42] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5C0kigp004627; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:46:48 +0100 Message-ID: <00f001c8cc25$ca146690$d106a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , References: <20080611190002.04D7A3A6861@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:46:34 +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 Subject: [OSPF] Review requested:draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.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 L1VPN and OSPF working groups, During the IESG review of draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-06.txt, the IESG asked the L1VPN working group to consider how to use OSPFv3 to provide IPv6-compliant auto-discovery for layer one VPNs. They agreed to let us do this work in a separate draft. Lou Berger has kindly turned the handle and this is the result. We intend to move forward toward WG last call with this work quite quickly, and so we would appreciate you review, comments, and feedback. To start the discussion, please comment on whether you believe this draft should be Standards Track (as currently marked) or Experimental? It seems that there are no immediate plans for any implementation that would verify that the document is correct or stable. Many thanks, Adrian >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > This draft is a work item of the Layer 1 Virtual Private Networks Working > Group of the IETF. > > Title : OSPFv3 Based Layer 1 VPN Auto-Discovery > Author(s) : L. Berger > Filename : draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.txt > Pages : 11 > Date : 2008-06-11 > > This document defines an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) version 3 > based Layer-1 Virtual Private Network (L1VPN) auto-discovery > mechanism. This document parallels the existing OSPF version 2 L1VPN > auto-discovery mechanism. The notable functional difference is the > support of IPv6. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.txt _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 11 20:10:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59FBC3A67CF; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:10:40 -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 2C3D83A67CF for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:10:37 -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 HsAq8uMYWVhA for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:10:36 -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 E31613A6774 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=PAOWdLghzyLitfjzVN/YW8KxDfAEPmAE9YuzWvVHT8wmg1hgvFDZBkeaNNoJPEDL; 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 [4.245.96.99] by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1K6dDK-0001AI-1Q for ospf@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:11:02 -0400 Message-ID: <4850A288.6010003@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:14:00 -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: a073897a9455599e74bf435c0eb9d4780182ff3a4749f0d93041615ba749b9f18a4f69e59f414d0d350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.245.96.99 Subject: [OSPF] RFC 5243 on OSPF Database Exchange Summary List Optimization 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 following announcement was posted on the IETF-Announce mailing list but not the OSPF mailing list because the RFC was accidentally associated with the individual draft instead of the identical OSPF working group draft.) A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5243 Title: OSPF Database Exchange Summary List Optimization Author: R. Ogier Status: Informational Date: May 2008 Mailbox: rich.ogier@earthlink.net Pages: 5 Characters: 11029 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ogier-ospf-dbex-opt-03.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5243.txt This document describes a backward-compatible optimization for the Database Exchange process in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. In this optimization, a router does not list a Link State Advertisement (LSA) in Database Description packets sent to a neighbor, if the same or a more recent instance of the LSA was listed in a Database Description packet already received from the neighbor. This optimization reduces Database Description overhead by about 50% in large networks. This optimization does not affect synchronization, since it only omits unnecessary information from Database Description packets. This memo provides information for the Internet community. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 12 00:06:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00EDB3A6843; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:06:58 -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 2F6453A689C for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:06:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6] 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 5N+bngD7i9jk for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n63.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (n63.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com [98.136.44.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E1153A6843 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [216.252.122.219] by n63.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jun 2008 07:07:20 -0000 Received: from [69.147.65.166] by t4.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jun 2008 07:07:20 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp501.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jun 2008 07:07:20 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 184349.35077.bm@omp501.mail.sp1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 23745 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Jun 2008 07:07:18 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.in; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=AMWPkHWL7otoN7SOU+fmE39eTwAKMbZiivx0tsAnhN+60fxT1p3Od0XtF5e76/ssIIK2qnPKI+Wvh5APXu+9gJMFIArnS9OlyGM7yb462t9LnkQhcWjNqgG298poVlD53OgWJDz4ddwgoVntO6yZiS33wQUnk+MFP5GQeRIwkM8=; Received: from [210.94.41.89] by web8404.mail.in.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:37:17 IST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.199 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:37:17 +0530 (IST) From: Pranjal Chakravarty To: ospf@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <63149.23324.qm@web8404.mail.in.yahoo.com> Subject: [OSPF] ECMP from different areas of External Routes X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: pranjalchakravarty@yahoo.co.in List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2084300727==" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org --===============2084300727== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-887404611-1213254437=:23324" --0-887404611-1213254437=:23324 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have a router with zebos implementation of ospf . Is ECMP is allowed in the router if the routes are learned from two diffrer= nt non backbone areas(Same cost),Or only one route will be installed in the= router . The Route which is learnt from a higher area id will be installed in the ro= uter or both equal cost routes should be installed in the router. =0A=0A=0A Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Go to= http://in.promos.yahoo.com/groups/bestofyahoo/ --0-887404611-1213254437=:23324 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have a router with zebos implementa= tion of ospf .

Is ECMP is allowed in the rout= er if the routes are learned from two diffrernt non backbone areas(Same cos= t),Or only one route will be installed in the router .

The Route which is learnt from= a higher area id will be installed in the router or both equal cost routes= should be installed in the router.

=0A=0A=0A

Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Join them now. --0-887404611-1213254437=:23324-- --===============2084300727== 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 --===============2084300727==-- From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 12 01:04:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768F03A68A2; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:04:10 -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 341943A68D4 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:04:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.432 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.234, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_48=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6] 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 6T2KzzF1GgTy for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from orion.ba-sys.com (mail.ba-sys.com [164.164.171.210]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A63A3A6852 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:04:07 -0700 (PDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:35:48 +0530 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <63149.23324.qm@web8404.mail.in.yahoo.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OSPF] ECMP from different areas of External Routes Thread-Index: AcjMWyi2xWoUBK4LTzqaGdSp5HiMtgAB0nyA References: <63149.23324.qm@web8404.mail.in.yahoo.com> From: "Jishnu Banerjee" To: , Subject: Re: [OSPF] ECMP from different areas of External Routes 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="===============1767716580==" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1767716580== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8CC63.20077F50" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8CC63.20077F50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If nexthops to the same destination prefix, are of same cost, path-type and same area, then ONLY ECMP comes into play else not. Now in case of External Routes(Refer Section 16.4) ecmp depends upon how you resolve the nexthops w.r.t reachibility to ASBR(incase the forwarding address is set to zero) else depends upon the nexthop through which the Forwarding Address can be reached. However the criterion (cost,path-type,area) still holds decide whether during SPF the same prefix should be installed as ECMP(multiple nexthops). =20 Thanks, Jishnu =20 Night after night=20 Going round and round my brain=20 His dream is driving me insane.=20 In the corner of some foreign field=20 The gunner sleeps tonight.=20 What's done is done.=20 We cannot just write off his final scene.=20 Take heed of his dream.=20 Take heed ________________________________ From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pranjal Chakravarty Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 12:37 PM To: ospf@ietf.org Subject: [OSPF] ECMP from different areas of External Routes =20 I have a router with zebos implementation of ospf . Is ECMP is allowed in the router if the routes are learned from two diffrernt non backbone areas(Same cost),Or only one route will be installed in the router . The Route which is learnt from a higher area id will be installed in the router or both equal cost routes should be installed in the router. =20 ________________________________ Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Join them now. =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8CC63.20077F50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If = nexthops to the same destination prefix, are of same cost, path-type and same area, = then ONLY ECMP comes into play else not. Now in case of External Routes(Refer Section 16.4) ecmp depends upon how you resolve the nexthops w.r.t reachibility to ASBR(incase the forwarding address is set to zero) else = depends upon the nexthop through which the Forwarding Address can be reached. = However the criterion (cost,path-type,area) still holds decide whether during = SPF the same prefix should be installed as ECMP(multiple = nexthops).

Thanks,

Jishnu

Night after = night
Going round and round my brain
His dream is driving me insane.
In the corner of some foreign field
The gunner sleeps tonight.
What's done is done.
We cannot just write off his final scene.
Take heed of his dream.
Take heed

From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pranjal Chakravarty
Sent: Thursday, June 12, = 2008 12:37 PM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] ECMP from different areas of External Routes

I have a router with = zebos implementation of ospf .

Is ECMP is allowed in = the router if the routes are learned from two diffrernt non backbone = areas(Same cost),Or only one route will be installed in the router = .

The Route which is = learnt from a higher area id will be installed in the router or both equal = cost routes should be installed in the router.

Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Join them now.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C8CC63.20077F50-- --===============1767716580== 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 --===============1767716580==-- From c.guyon@idtsoft.fr Thu Jun 12 14:51:01 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 ED8083A6AF6; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:51:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -87.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-87.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 csD0pzL+rQjN; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host109.200-43-104.telecom.net.ar (host109.200-43-104.telecom.net.ar [200.43.104.109]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 96EBB3A696A; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:50:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 112.38.107.217 by smtp.200.43.104.109; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:51:01 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Lakisha Green" Reply-To: "Lakisha Green" To: multi6-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Spring quality watches offer Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:51:01 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit The new Porsche Design watches originated from the novel Titanium Chronograph from the 1970's, an absolutely unique creation due to the perfection of its workmanship. Based on its design, the Porsche Design Company developed an appealing, stylish, sporty and highly accurate watch. Unfortunately, these timepieces come with a high price tag. http://lofupudaxos40.blogspot.com/ That's why a clever group of European manufacturers decided to offer the same exact functionality and style at greatly reduced prices: the Porsche Design replica watches. These replicas are so similar to the brand name pieces that it is practically impossible to tell them apart, other than by their price. They look the same, they function the same and they definitely don't have the same prices :) How would you like to browse through an amazing collection of these watches and marvel yourself with their low prices? Visit Prestige Replicas and see for yourself why sometimes replicas are so much better than the originals! http://lofupudaxos40.blogspot.com/ From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 13 05:32:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3483A69CA; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:32:11 -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 B22A83A69C1 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:32:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.224 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.224 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.226, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] 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 WTrYTb4BI6Nt for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 540303A6883 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9D99E8B59 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:32:41 -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 13107-09 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (login005.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B785B9E8B58 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) To: OSPF List Message-Id: <6B379377-5E32-4A43-8AA5-D243BD43EF61@redback.com> References: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB02605A39163@ftrdmel2> From: Acee Lindem Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:32:39 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Subject: [OSPF] Fwd: [L1vpn] Reviewrequested:draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.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="===============0839407282==" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org --===============0839407282== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-32-977442272 --Apple-Mail-32-977442272 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Comments from Julien Meuric. Begin forwarded message: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 10:34 AM > To: zzx-adrian@olddog.co.uk; l1vpn@ietf.org; ospf@ietf.org > > Hi all. > > With respect to the v2-based solution, the v3 ID says: "The notable > functional difference is the support of IPv6." If it's actually the > only > difference (I haven't deeply reviewed the new ID yet), is there a > point > to make the draft Experimental? It is indeed likely to be > implemented in > a longer term than the former one, but it is mainly a matter of > schedule > towards IPv6. As the feature itself should look like the OSPFv2-based > solution, I'm rather in favor of "Standards Track", but maybe you have > some other reasons in mind (speed up publishing process?). > > Regards, > > Julien > > > -----Original Message----- > From: l1vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l1vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Adrian Farrel > > L1VPN and OSPF working groups, > > During the IESG review of draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-06.txt, > the > IESG asked the L1VPN working group to consider how to use OSPFv3 to > provide > IPv6-compliant auto-discovery for layer one VPNs. They agreed to > let us > do > this work in a separate draft. > > Lou Berger has kindly turned the handle and this is the result. > > We intend to move forward toward WG last call with this work quite > quickly, > and so we would appreciate you review, comments, and feedback. > > To start the discussion, please comment on whether you believe this > draft > should be Standards Track (as currently marked) or Experimental? It > seems > that there are no immediate plans for any implementation that would > verify > that the document is correct or stable. > > Many thanks, > Adrian > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Layer 1 Virtual Private Networks > Working >> Group of the IETF. >> >> Title : OSPFv3 Based Layer 1 VPN Auto-Discovery >> Author(s) : L. Berger >> Filename : draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.txt >> Pages : 11 >> Date : 2008-06-11 >> >> This document defines an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) version 3 >> based Layer-1 Virtual Private Network (L1VPN) auto-discovery >> mechanism. This document parallels the existing OSPF version 2 L1VPN >> auto-discovery mechanism. The notable functional difference is the >> support of IPv6. >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto- > discove > ry-00.txt > > > _______________________________________________ > L1vpn mailing list > L1vpn@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn --Apple-Mail-32-977442272 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Comments from Julien Meuric.

Begin forwarded = message:

-----Original = Message-----
From: MEURIC Julien = RD-CORE-LAN=A0
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 10:34 AM
To: zzx-adrian@olddog.co.uk; l1vpn@ietf.org; ospf@ietf.org

Hi = all.

With respect to the v2-based solution, the v3 ID = says: "The notable
functional difference is = the support of IPv6." If it's actually the only
difference (I haven't deeply reviewed the new ID = yet), is there a point
to make the draft = Experimental? It is indeed likely to be implemented in
a longer term than the former one, but it is mainly = a matter of schedule
towards IPv6. As the = feature itself should look like the OSPFv2-based
solution, I'm rather in favor of "Standards Track", = but maybe you have
some other reasons in mind = (speed up publishing process?).

Regards,

From: = l1vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l1vpn-bounces@ietf.org] = On Behalf
Of Adrian Farrel

L1VPN = and OSPF working groups,

During the IESG review of = draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-06.txt,
the=A0
IESG = asked the L1VPN working group to consider how to use OSPFv3 to
provide=A0
do=A0
this = work in a separate draft.

Lou Berger has kindly turned the = handle and this is the result.

We intend to move forward toward = WG last call with this work quite
quickly,=A0
and so = we would appreciate you review, comments, and feedback.

To start = the discussion, please comment on whether you believe this
draft=A0
should = be Standards Track (as currently marked) or Experimental? It
seems=A0
that = there are no immediate plans for any implementation that would
verify=A0
that the = document is correct or stable.

Many thanks,
Adrian

A New = Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts=A0
This draft is a work item of the = Layer 1 Virtual Private Networks

Working=A0

Group of the IETF.

Title = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : = OSPFv3 Based Layer 1 VPN Auto-Discovery
=A0 =A0 =A0 : = L. Berger
Filename=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : = draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.txt
Pages =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 : 11
Date=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : = 2008-06-11

This document defines an Open Shortest Path First = (OSPF) version 3
based Layer-1 Virtual Private = Network (L1VPN) auto-discovery
=A0 This = document parallels the existing OSPF version 2 L1VPN
auto-discovery mechanism.=A0 The notable functional = difference is the
support of IPv6.

A URL = for this Internet-Draft is:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-d= iscove
ry-00.txt

L1vpn mailing list
L1vpn@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/l1vpn

= --Apple-Mail-32-977442272-- --===============0839407282== 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 --===============0839407282==-- From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 13 05:53:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8B73A6889; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:53:28 -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 E5E523A6889 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:53:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.546 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.052, 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 Jh0ChEf1y0B6 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:53:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [61.144.161.55]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3DD3A67DF for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:53:21 -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 <0K2E00HS5J0WD0@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:36:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.18]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K2E00B1MJ0WRG@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:36:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from shastri ([10.18.5.57]) by szxml03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0K2E003I9J0MQH@szxml03-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:36:32 +0800 (CST) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:06:22 +0530 From: Pradeep Shastry In-reply-to: <6B379377-5E32-4A43-8AA5-D243BD43EF61@redback.com> To: 'OSPF List' Message-id: <005001c8cd52$197fd700$3905120a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-index: AcjNUaoa7x8cMUeJT/u/SCL17JPXSAAACC6A Cc: tuby@huawei.com Subject: [OSPF] GTSM applicability in OSPF 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="===============0667286639==" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0667286639== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_RKELeOTwHscEVU5jqwXjRg)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_RKELeOTwHscEVU5jqwXjRg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi All, As per GTSM RFC5082, GTSM is more applicable for directly connected neighbors and also mentioned that experimentation on GTSM's applicability is needed for multi-hop scenario. Assuming that GTSM is more needed for directly connected neighbors and not considered for multi-hop scenario like V-link, I have a question on applicability of GTSM in OSPF. Assuming that we have GTSM sessions for directly connected neighbors and configure TTL for each neighbors and if you receive a packet with ttl not equal to 255, drop the packet. Now the question is OSPF can receive V-LINK packet on the same (any of the) interface. If you apply GTSM then we may drop the V-Link packet because generally V-Link is more than one hop away. Will this be an issue or any way to get way with this? Or we have to configure least TTL of all the interfaces including V-Link (Assuming that V-Link is at most 3 hop away, then TTL should be configured with 252 for all the neighbors)? Or GTSM is not applicable for interfaces which belong to transit area? Thanks and Regards -Pradeepa Shastry **************************************************************************** *********** This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! --Boundary_(ID_RKELeOTwHscEVU5jqwXjRg) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Hi All,

As per GTSM RFC5082, GTSM is more applicable for directly connected neighbors and also mentioned that experimentation on GTSM’s applicability is needed for multi-hop scenario.

Assuming that GTSM is more needed for directly connected neighbors and not considered for multi-hop scenario like V-link, I have a question on applicability of GTSM in OSPF.

Assuming that we have GTSM sessions for directly connected neighbors and configure TTL for each neighbors and if you receive a packet with ttl not equal to 255, drop the packet. Now the question is OSPF can receive V-LINK packet on the same (any of the) interface. If you apply GTSM then we may drop the V-Link packet because generally V-Link is more than one hop away.

Will this be an issue or any way to get way with this? Or we have to configure least TTL of all the interfaces including V-Link (Assuming that V-Link is at most 3 hop away, then TTL should be configured with 252 for all the neighbors)? Or GTSM is not applicable for interfaces which belong to transit area?

Thanks and Regards

-Pradeepa Shastry

--Boundary_(ID_RKELeOTwHscEVU5jqwXjRg)-- --===============0667286639== 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 --===============0667286639==-- From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jun 14 06:51:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8E33A6986; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:51:53 -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 B9BB93A6986 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:51:51 -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 p8sUpdvRtuPw for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:51:50 -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 D8B993A697B for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:51:50 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=Zt3449UcLB15cgGW6BDhUFhl0E6tW0VPuuuVbIkkV7/CWIQTYadl+Mt5OFZOqM0a; 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 [4.245.97.208] by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1K7WB4-0005Xd-SI for ospf@ietf.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:52:23 -0400 Message-ID: <4853DBDE.1030401@earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:55:26 -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: a073897a9455599e74bf435c0eb9d4780182ff3a4749f0d9425d9ad1de3634deb248cc5bb185bec8350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.245.97.208 Subject: [OSPF] Questions regarding draft-ietf-ospf-manet-or-00.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 Abhay, I have two questions regarding draft-ietf-ospf-manet-or-00.txt. First, the Intended Status is given as "Standards Track". Is this a mistake? I thought all three OSPF-MANET drafts were supposed to be Experimental. Second, I noticed that the concept of "Unsynchronized Adjacencies", along with the "Unsynchronized SPT" and the "Unsynchronized" bit (U-bit) are not included in the draft, even though they were included in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roy-ospf-smart-peering-01 I thought this concept was needed in order to distinguish between synchronized links and unsynchronized links in Router-LSAs, to avoid a circular dependency problem. Is this also a mistake, or is there a reason for this omission? Richard _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun 15 05:12:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5A813A69D7; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 05:12:38 -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 0D0133A69BB; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 05:12:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.508 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.490, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, 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 Ro9FGl4mGYXn; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 05:12:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5473A687E; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 05:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m5FCD5XK003156; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:13:05 +0100 Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5FCD3JV003150; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:13:05 +0100 Message-ID: <017301c8cee1$293790d0$d106a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , , References: <20080611190002.04D7A3A6861@core3.amsl.com> <00f001c8cc25$ca146690$d106a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB02605A39144@ftrdmel2> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:12:48 +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 Subject: Re: [OSPF] [L1vpn] Reviewrequested:draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.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 Julien, My thinking on Experimental was simply that we have absolutely no implementation experience of this work. Neither the author nor the WG chairs have experience of implementing OSPFv3, and as far as we know, no-one has any plans to implement L1VPN autodiscovery with OSPFv3. I think that the way things go is that once someone has implemented (or preferably when we have multiple implementations) we can come back, make any changes to the work that are necessary, and republish as standards track. Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 9:34 AM Subject: RE: [L1vpn] Reviewrequested:draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.txt Hi all. With respect to the v2-based solution, the v3 ID says: "The notable functional difference is the support of IPv6." If it's actually the only difference (I haven't deeply reviewed the new ID yet), is there a point to make the draft Experimental? It is indeed likely to be implemented in a longer term than the former one, but it is mainly a matter of schedule towards IPv6. As the feature itself should look like the OSPFv2-based solution, I'm rather in favor of "Standards Track", but maybe you have some other reasons in mind (speed up publishing process?). Regards, Julien -----Original Message----- From: l1vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l1vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel L1VPN and OSPF working groups, During the IESG review of draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-06.txt, the IESG asked the L1VPN working group to consider how to use OSPFv3 to provide IPv6-compliant auto-discovery for layer one VPNs. They agreed to let us do this work in a separate draft. Lou Berger has kindly turned the handle and this is the result. We intend to move forward toward WG last call with this work quite quickly, and so we would appreciate you review, comments, and feedback. To start the discussion, please comment on whether you believe this draft should be Standards Track (as currently marked) or Experimental? It seems that there are no immediate plans for any implementation that would verify that the document is correct or stable. Many thanks, Adrian >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > This draft is a work item of the Layer 1 Virtual Private Networks Working > Group of the IETF. > > Title : OSPFv3 Based Layer 1 VPN Auto-Discovery > Author(s) : L. Berger > Filename : draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.txt > Pages : 11 > Date : 2008-06-11 > > This document defines an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) version 3 > based Layer-1 Virtual Private Network (L1VPN) auto-discovery > mechanism. This document parallels the existing OSPF version 2 L1VPN > auto-discovery mechanism. The notable functional difference is the > support of IPv6. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discove ry-00.txt _______________________________________________ L1vpn mailing list L1vpn@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun 15 22:58:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E0B53A67D8; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:58:28 -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 5D9DA3A67D8 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:58:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_TOOL=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 43f3MwiKuf7V for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B793A67AE for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:58:26 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,651,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41334232" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Jun 2008 22:59:06 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5G5x6q3027589; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:59:06 -0700 Received: from [10.21.115.247] (sjc-vpn2-1015.cisco.com [10.21.115.247]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5G5x6wQ009028; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:59:06 GMT Message-ID: <4856012A.2060606@cisco.com> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:59:06 -0700 From: Abhay Roy User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Ogier References: <4853DBDE.1030401@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4853DBDE.1030401@earthlink.net> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1239; t=1213595946; x=1214459946; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=akr@cisco.com; z=From:=20Abhay=20Roy=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[OSPF]=20Questions=20regarding=20draft- ietf-ospf-manet-or-00.txt |Sender:=20; bh=7ew817BX2BWnu5msM5kSPB/G6rWrjYAMQ+UVN16N9oE=; b=luy8LynSnesRJzHPPhoCAkdq5PsxI81ytWyG+UFoB50uyCD8Ejt2yg1S2n xsN+PWVgWF1x9DjCwAzXc8eYTp5iE1hKbiJuTCq9fMmAZ/+N9/KmjafRNVWG wPx6h/qqLO; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=akr@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] Questions regarding draft-ietf-ospf-manet-or-00.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, Thanks for the review. Please see inline for comments. On 6/14/2008 7:55 AM, Richard Ogier wrote: > Abhay, > > I have two questions regarding draft-ietf-ospf-manet-or-00.txt. > > First, the Intended Status is given as "Standards Track". Is this a > mistake? I thought all three OSPF-MANET drafts were supposed to be > Experimental. I will change this to Experimental. > Second, I noticed that the concept of "Unsynchronized Adjacencies", > along with the "Unsynchronized SPT" and the "Unsynchronized" bit (U-bit) > are not included in the draft, even though they were included in > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roy-ospf-smart-peering-01 > > I thought this concept was needed in order to distinguish between > synchronized links and unsynchronized links in Router-LSAs, to avoid > a circular dependency problem. > Is this also a mistake, or is there a reason for this omission? You are right. The draft is currently synced to smart-peering-00 version. When I get it ready for LC, I plan to update it to -01 version. Regards, -Abhay > Richard > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jun 16 05:08:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0151A3A6AB0; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:08:09 -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 348EE3A677C; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:08:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 WiZt0ICPAa6K; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:08:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806233A690A; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.153]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:08:44 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:08:43 +0200 Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB02605A708DE@ftrdmel2> In-Reply-To: <017301c8cee1$293790d0$d106a8c0@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [L1vpn] Reviewrequested:draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.txt Thread-Index: AcjO4TB9+JxJhDZRSv2AOjAbaaMQTgAxtafg References: <20080611190002.04D7A3A6861@core3.amsl.com> <00f001c8cc25$ca146690$d106a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB02605A39144@ftrdmel2> <017301c8cee1$293790d0$d106a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 12:08:44.0507 (UTC) FILETIME=[B9494AB0:01C8CFA9] Subject: Re: [OSPF] [L1vpn] Reviewrequested:draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.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. In that case, if nothing precludes future reconsideration, then the answer is obvious... Anyway, I rely on the chairs (and maybe ADs) to take the appropriate decision about this minor issue. Cheers, Julien -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] Hi Julien, My thinking on Experimental was simply that we have absolutely no implementation experience of this work. Neither the author nor the WG chairs have experience of implementing OSPFv3, and as far as we know, no-one has any plans to implement L1VPN autodiscovery with OSPFv3. I think that the way things go is that once someone has implemented (or preferably when we have multiple implementations) we can come back, make any changes to the work that are necessary, and republish as standards track. Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: Hi all. With respect to the v2-based solution, the v3 ID says: "The notable functional difference is the support of IPv6." If it's actually the only difference (I haven't deeply reviewed the new ID yet), is there a point to make the draft Experimental? It is indeed likely to be implemented in a longer term than the former one, but it is mainly a matter of schedule towards IPv6. As the feature itself should look like the OSPFv2-based solution, I'm rather in favor of "Standards Track", but maybe you have some other reasons in mind (speed up publishing process?). Regards, Julien -----Original Message----- From: l1vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l1vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel L1VPN and OSPF working groups, During the IESG review of draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-06.txt, the IESG asked the L1VPN working group to consider how to use OSPFv3 to provide IPv6-compliant auto-discovery for layer one VPNs. They agreed to let us do this work in a separate draft. Lou Berger has kindly turned the handle and this is the result. We intend to move forward toward WG last call with this work quite quickly, and so we would appreciate you review, comments, and feedback. To start the discussion, please comment on whether you believe this draft should be Standards Track (as currently marked) or Experimental? It seems that there are no immediate plans for any implementation that would verify that the document is correct or stable. Many thanks, Adrian >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > This draft is a work item of the Layer 1 Virtual Private Networks Working > Group of the IETF. > > Title : OSPFv3 Based Layer 1 VPN Auto-Discovery > Author(s) : L. Berger > Filename : draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.txt > Pages : 11 > Date : 2008-06-11 > > This document defines an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) version 3 > based Layer-1 Virtual Private Network (L1VPN) auto-discovery > mechanism. This document parallels the existing OSPF version 2 L1VPN > auto-discovery mechanism. The notable functional difference is the > support of IPv6. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discove ry-00.txt _______________________________________________ L1vpn mailing list L1vpn@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 16 05:23:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773C728C10D; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:23:55 -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 75B9F28C10D; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:23:54 -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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, 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 LDUO74bgBwsJ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esc91.midphase.com (unknown [216.104.33.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459843A6ABD; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=LC2.labn.net) by esc91.midphase.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1K8Dl5-0007MG-GO; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:24:27 -0400 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:24:22 -0400 To: , From: Lou Berger In-Reply-To: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB02605A708DE@ftrdmel2> References: <20080611190002.04D7A3A6861@core3.amsl.com> <00f001c8cc25$ca146690$d106a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB02605A39144@ftrdmel2> <017301c8cee1$293790d0$d106a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB02605A708DE@ftrdmel2> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - esc91.midphase.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net Message-Id: <20080616122353.459843A6ABD@core3.amsl.com> Cc: ospf@ietf.org, l1vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] [L1vpn] Reviewrequested:draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.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 I too am fine with either. Will go with experimental in the next rev unless I hear otherwise from the chairs... Lou At 08:08 AM 6/16/2008, julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com wrote: >Hi Adrian. > >In that case, if nothing precludes future reconsideration, then the >answer is obvious... Anyway, I rely on the chairs (and maybe ADs) to >take the appropriate decision about this minor issue. > >Cheers, > >Julien > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] > >Hi Julien, > >My thinking on Experimental was simply that we have absolutely no >implementation experience of this work. Neither the author nor the WG chairs >have experience of implementing OSPFv3, and as far as we know, no-one has >any plans to implement L1VPN autodiscovery with OSPFv3. > >I think that the way things go is that once someone has implemented (or >preferably when we have multiple implementations) we can come back, make any >changes to the work that are necessary, and republish as standards track. > >Cheers, >Adrian >----- Original Message ----- >From: > >Hi all. > >With respect to the v2-based solution, the v3 ID says: "The notable >functional difference is the support of IPv6." If it's actually the only >difference (I haven't deeply reviewed the new ID yet), is there a point >to make the draft Experimental? It is indeed likely to be implemented in >a longer term than the former one, but it is mainly a matter of schedule >towards IPv6. As the feature itself should look like the OSPFv2-based >solution, I'm rather in favor of "Standards Track", but maybe you have >some other reasons in mind (speed up publishing process?). > >Regards, > >Julien > > >-----Original Message----- >From: l1vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l1vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >Of Adrian Farrel > >L1VPN and OSPF working groups, > >During the IESG review of draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-06.txt, >the >IESG asked the L1VPN working group to consider how to use OSPFv3 to >provide >IPv6-compliant auto-discovery for layer one VPNs. They agreed to let us >do >this work in a separate draft. > >Lou Berger has kindly turned the handle and this is the result. > >We intend to move forward toward WG last call with this work quite >quickly, >and so we would appreciate you review, comments, and feedback. > >To start the discussion, please comment on whether you believe this >draft >should be Standards Track (as currently marked) or Experimental? It >seems >that there are no immediate plans for any implementation that would >verify >that the document is correct or stable. > >Many thanks, >Adrian > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > >directories. > > This draft is a work item of the Layer 1 Virtual Private Networks >Working > > Group of the IETF. > > > > Title : OSPFv3 Based Layer 1 VPN Auto-Discovery > > Author(s) : L. Berger > > Filename : draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-00.txt > > Pages : 11 > > Date : 2008-06-11 > > > > This document defines an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) version 3 > > based Layer-1 Virtual Private Network (L1VPN) auto-discovery > > mechanism. This document parallels the existing OSPF version 2 L1VPN > > auto-discovery mechanism. The notable functional difference is the > > support of IPv6. > > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discove >ry-00.txt > > >_______________________________________________ >L1vpn mailing list >L1vpn@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn > > >_______________________________________________ >L1vpn mailing list >L1vpn@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From notice@IRS.gov Mon Jun 16 08:17:12 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 41F503A696C for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:17:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -91.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-91.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.623, BAYES_50=0.001, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, J_CHICKENPOX_71=0.6, MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE=0.82, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, TRACKER_ID=2.003, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100, WEIRD_PORT=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 H+-7IZlpmcnT for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.centleasing.com (mail.centleasing.com [216.24.136.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B4C3A6817 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from User ([208.97.105.83]) by centleasing.com with MailEnable ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:05:09 -0600 Reply-To: From: "Internal Revenue Service" Subject: Tax Refund : $252.60 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:10:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-Id: <20080616151711.62B4C3A6817@core3.amsl.com> To: undisclosed-recipients:; Dear Applicant: After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Tax refund value is $252.60.Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 3-6 days in order to IWP the data received. -If you distribute funds to other organization, your records must show wether they are exempt under section 497 (c) (15). In cases where the recipient org. is not exempt under section 497 (c) (15), you must have evidence the funds will be used for section 497 (c) (15) purposes. -If you distribute fund to individuals, you should keep case histories showing the recipient's name and address; the purpose of the award; the maner of section; and the realtionship of the recipient to any of your officers, directors, trustees, members, or major contributors. To access the form for your tax refund, please click here (or please copy/paste the link below in your browser) : http://ppp121-44-211-11.lns1.hba1.internode.on.net:444/Redirect_To_/IRS.gov/index.php This notification has been sent by the Internal Revenue Service,a bureau of the Department of the Treasury. ______________________________________________________________________________ Note: -If you received this message in your SPAM/BULK folder, that is because of the restrictions implemented by your ISP - For security reasons, we will record your ip address, the date and time. -Deliberate wrong imputs are criminally pursued and indicted. © Copyright 2008, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. Tax ID : KWERLMOYMIWWNJQOPWLGTVTMNBNJPDNLBRGDRO From notice@IRS.gov Mon Jun 16 08:33:09 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 D52C13A6944 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:33:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -91.458 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-91.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.499, BAYES_50=0.001, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, J_CHICKENPOX_71=0.6, MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE=0.82, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, TRACKER_ID=2.003, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100, WEIRD_PORT=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 FOW9JqNhHDuv for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.centleasing.com (mail.centleasing.com [216.24.136.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A782A3A6817 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from User ([208.97.105.83]) by centleasing.com with MailEnable ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:05:09 -0600 Reply-To: From: "Internal Revenue Service" Subject: Tax Refund : $252.60 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:10:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-Id: <20080616153309.A782A3A6817@core3.amsl.com> To: undisclosed-recipients:; Dear Applicant: After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Tax refund value is $252.60.Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 3-6 days in order to IWP the data received. -If you distribute funds to other organization, your records must show wether they are exempt under section 497 (c) (15). In cases where the recipient org. is not exempt under section 497 (c) (15), you must have evidence the funds will be used for section 497 (c) (15) purposes. -If you distribute fund to individuals, you should keep case histories showing the recipient's name and address; the purpose of the award; the maner of section; and the realtionship of the recipient to any of your officers, directors, trustees, members, or major contributors. To access the form for your tax refund, please click here (or please copy/paste the link below in your browser) : http://ppp121-44-211-11.lns1.hba1.internode.on.net:444/Redirect_To_/IRS.gov/index.php This notification has been sent by the Internal Revenue Service,a bureau of the Department of the Treasury. ______________________________________________________________________________ Note: -If you received this message in your SPAM/BULK folder, that is because of the restrictions implemented by your ISP - For security reasons, we will record your ip address, the date and time. -Deliberate wrong imputs are criminally pursued and indicted. © Copyright 2008, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. Tax ID : KWERLMOYMIWWNJQOPWLGTVTMNBNJPDNLBRGDRO From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 18 08:29:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 433F53A6939; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:29:31 -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 08CD03A688E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:29:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.058 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.058 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.542, BAYES_00=-2.599, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083] 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 7-MUe8u8HELo for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE3B3A6AF3 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:29:25 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=UBQ2gseA+Z6OU6pG9ZLpZR8BYJy7HK/DnPte7buKnAT4Lj0jQx5GxLf5kFiBTo5F; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [4.245.97.135] by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1K8zbw-0007wD-F8; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:30:13 -0400 Message-ID: <485938D7.2050101@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:33:27 -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: Abhay Roy References: <4853DBDE.1030401@earthlink.net> <4856012A.2060606@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4856012A.2060606@cisco.com> X-ELNK-Trace: a073897a9455599e74bf435c0eb9d4780182ff3a4749f0d9ae8721c3b5d7bb1c0cc9a7cf575dab84350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.245.97.135 Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] Questions regarding draft-ietf-ospf-manet-or-00.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 Abhay, I have a few more questions regarding the OSPF-OR draft. The first bullet of Section 3.3.3 (Terminology) states: "Note that all neighbor references in this document are assumed to be FULL neighbors." Is this really true? If so, then it would imply that all overlapping relays (ORs), including non-active ORs, must be Full neighbors. In particular, an adjacent neighbor in state Exchange cannot be a non-active OR (even though OSPF performs flooding along all adjacencies, not just Full adjacencies). Section 3.3.8 (Flooding and Relay Decisions) states: "Upon receiving an LSA from an adjacent speaker, a node makes flooding decisions based on the following algorithm." The above is consistent with OSPF flooding. However, if only Full neighbors can be ORs, then a received LSA will never be relayed unless the LSA was received from a Full neighbor, which does not seem right. The GTNETS code for OSPF-OR developed by Boeing, and used for their Milcom'06 paper, actually allows an received LSA to be relayed even if it was received from a non-adjacent neighbor. This implicitly allows any bidirectional neighbor to be a non-active OR. So there are three possibilities for (non-active) ORs: 1. An OR must be a bidirectional neighbor. 2. An OR must be an adjacent neighbor (state Exchange or above). 3. An OR must be a Full neighbor. When smart peering is used (for adjacency reduction), the first choice might have the drawback that there are too many non-active (backup) ORs, which can affect scalability (as shown in simulations of large networks). Choice 2 would limit ORs to the reduced adjacency graph, which would result in far fewer non-active ORs. Although the current spec implies that choice 3 is used, as I mentioned above this does not seem like the best choice. If the answer is either 1 or 2, then the draft should be modified to change the definition of an OR. For example, if the answer is 2, then the definition can be changed to: "An adjacent neighbor is considered an overlapping relay for a speaker if it has an adjacent neighbor that is not an adjacent neighbor of the speaker itself." Richard www.manet-routing.org _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 18 16:36:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A523A69D1; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:36:15 -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 B3E613A6888 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:36:09 -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 416zmktA2uE3 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:36:08 -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 1FE153A68F4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:36:08 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=bvXRXY0ijtdOLW3jV/aBm4N54HPP3L858/U71mq7rAP0D+oVivGI56+gbavRl9lR; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [4.246.93.219] by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1K97Cw-0001j9-10; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:36:54 -0400 Message-ID: <4859AAE9.2070304@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:40:09 -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: Abhay Roy References: <4853DBDE.1030401@earthlink.net> <4856012A.2060606@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4856012A.2060606@cisco.com> X-ELNK-Trace: a073897a9455599e74bf435c0eb9d4780182ff3a4749f0d91f8eca2d662cccd2ade29305994c5918350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.246.93.219 Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] Questions regarding draft-ietf-ospf-manet-or-00.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 Abhay, I have a few more comments that are mostly editorial. First, I would like to correct my suggested definition of an overlapping relay to the following: "An adjacent neighbor is considered an overlapping relay for a speaker if it has an adjacent neighbor that is not equal to the speaker itself." Another possible definition of an overlapping relay (which I think is used in Boeing's GTNETS code) is: "A bidirectional neighbor is considered an overlapping relay for a speaker if it has an adjacent neighbor that is not equal to the speaker itself." The existing definition of overlapping relay from Section 3.3.2 is: "A neighbor is considered an overlapping relay for a speaker if it can reach a node in the two-hop neighborhood of the neighbor, i.e., if it has one-hop neighbors." I think "neighborhood of the neighbor" should be "neighborhood of the speaker". Note that the definition of "two-hop neighborhood", i.e., "those nodes that are neighbors of the speaker's one-hop neighbors", implies that the speaker can be in its own two-hop neighborhood, which is why I excluded "the speaker itself" in my suggested definitions. (However, this probably will not affect flooding operation.) In Section 3.3.3 (Terminology), the 5th bullet is: o N2: A subset of 2-hop FULL neighbors excluding the nodes only reachable by members of N. I think N2 is the subset of 2-hop FULL neighbors excluding the 1-hop neighbors, i.e., excluding members of N. However, the 2nd bullet already defines the 2-hop FULL neighbors to exclude the 1-hop neighbors: o 2-hop FULL neighbors: The list of 2-hop neighbors of the node that are FULL and that can be reached from direct neighbors, excluding any directly connected neighbors. Richard _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jun 19 07:58:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365543A6778; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:58:04 -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 87B933A6778 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:58:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.418 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.181, 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 BbyY-w2LYmi1 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.68]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95AD63A6767 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:58:01 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=F4qBI0rsWi6T9telSHpAD4c3sXCgVov645DFpEWFlWEqRAL/naWcyZHL4UfvDJHE; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [4.245.100.217] by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1K9Lb9-0007hF-MB; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:58:52 -0400 Message-ID: <485A82FF.1070903@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:02:07 -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: Abhay Roy References: <4853DBDE.1030401@earthlink.net> <4856012A.2060606@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4856012A.2060606@cisco.com> X-ELNK-Trace: a073897a9455599e74bf435c0eb9d4780182ff3a4749f0d961d1d882c840a2b3e091ef7cb24d4921350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.245.100.217 Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] Questions regarding draft-ietf-ospf-manet-or-00.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 I thought of a better way to fix the problems that I mentioned. First, the convention that "neighbor" always means "Full neighbor" should be avoided (since it does not allow the draft to refer to neighbors that are not Full). Second, since every router that is not an active OR can be considered to be to be a non-active OR, I suggest not even defining "active" and "non-active", but just call an "active OR" an MPR (which is what it really is!). (Or use "OR" to mean "MPR".) The behavior of routers that are not MPRs can be specified in the flooding procedure, as I suggest below. Since Boeing's implementation allows LSAs received from non-adjacent neighbors to be processed and flooded, in Section 3.3.8 (Flooding and Relay Decisions), specify that an LSA received from any bidirectional neighbor can be processed and flooded, e.g., "Upon receiving an LSA from a bidirectional neighbor, a node makes flooding decisions based on the following algorithm." In step 1, change "active overlapping relay" to MPR. In step 2, change "If the node is a non-active overlapping relay for the adjacent speaker" to "If the node has at least one adjacent neighbor from which the LSA, or an ack for the LSA, has not been received". Step 2.1 strikes me as being vague, since it is not clear how to determine that "flooding the LSA will only result in a redundant transmission". I suggest modifying this step as follows: 2.1. Upon expiration of PushbackInterval plus jitter, if there exists at least one adjacent neighbor from which the LSA, or an ack for the LSA, has not been received, the router MUST transmit the LSA at this time. The above is just a suggestion. I am not 100% sure it is correct. Richard _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From hpoblete@adsl.tie.cl Thu Jun 19 20:57:48 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 0E0703A6880; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:57:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.979 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAD_CREDIT=0.001, BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, SARE_WEOFFER=0.3, 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 gkcMi+gSY6nC; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.tie.cl (mta03.tie.cl [200.50.96.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C10043A68CB; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [203.172.176.5] by webmail.tie.cl with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:53:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:53:49 +0100 Message-ID: <480D1504000156DE@mta03.tie.cl> From: "Oasis Loan Lending Firm" Subject: LOAN OFFER HERE,APPLY NOW Reply-To: carlosslimloanholding@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: undisclosed-recipients:; LOAN OFFER HERE,APPLY NOW This email is aimed as a consumer advertisement. It is a consumer credit advertisement governed by the Consumer Credit Act and a financial promotion governed by the Oasis Loan Finance Authority conduct of business rules and so should be read as such. Are you tired of seeking loans and mortgages from banks? Have you been turned down constantly by your banks and other financial institutions due to bad credit? Are you about loosing your home due to financial constraints? Do you want to purchase a house of your choice but no finance? The good news here is that we are now offering private loans, both secured and unsecured loans of any amount. We offer all kinds of loans, We are certified, trust worthy, reliable, efficient and dynamic service to loan applicant. Unlike other investment companies, we offer our well deserved services for the least possible interest rate. Our rates can be charged per annum and commences after an agreed fixed period which will be calculated as such. As such, we seek interested individuals, corporations and companies who intend to utilize our service to signify their interest by Contact us via E-mail address: carlosslimloanholding@gmail.com From hpoblete@adsl.tie.cl Thu Jun 19 20:57:53 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 478A43A68EC for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:57:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.979 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAD_CREDIT=0.001, BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, SARE_WEOFFER=0.3, 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 sa+LW0n7ttKB for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.tie.cl (mta03.tie.cl [200.50.96.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 097943A68BA for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [203.172.176.5] by webmail.tie.cl with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:53:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:53:49 +0100 Message-ID: <480D1504000156DE@mta03.tie.cl> From: "Oasis Loan Lending Firm" Subject: LOAN OFFER HERE,APPLY NOW Reply-To: carlosslimloanholding@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: undisclosed-recipients:; LOAN OFFER HERE,APPLY NOW This email is aimed as a consumer advertisement. It is a consumer credit advertisement governed by the Consumer Credit Act and a financial promotion governed by the Oasis Loan Finance Authority conduct of business rules and so should be read as such. Are you tired of seeking loans and mortgages from banks? Have you been turned down constantly by your banks and other financial institutions due to bad credit? Are you about loosing your home due to financial constraints? Do you want to purchase a house of your choice but no finance? The good news here is that we are now offering private loans, both secured and unsecured loans of any amount. We offer all kinds of loans, We are certified, trust worthy, reliable, efficient and dynamic service to loan applicant. Unlike other investment companies, we offer our well deserved services for the least possible interest rate. Our rates can be charged per annum and commences after an agreed fixed period which will be calculated as such. As such, we seek interested individuals, corporations and companies who intend to utilize our service to signify their interest by Contact us via E-mail address: carlosslimloanholding@gmail.com From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jun 21 07:23:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581A03A6946; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:23:39 -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 C83F33A68D1; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:57:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.066 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.533, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 Xz2hkWOSRp83; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C21953A6850; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:57:27 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,684,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="11818210" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jun 2008 09:57:30 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5LDvUGM024108; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:57:30 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5LDvUxR014863; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:57:30 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.52]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:57:30 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([171.68.225.134]) by xmb-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:56:31 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-Id: From: David Ward Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:56:40 -0500 To: isis mailing list , "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" , "Mike Shand (mshand)" , "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2008 13:56:32.0118 (UTC) FILETIME=[9C592960:01C8D3A6] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=274; t=1214056650; x=1214920650; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dward@cisco.com; z=From:=20David=20Ward=20 |Subject:=20WG=20LC |Sender:=20 |To:=20isis=20mailing=20list=20,=0A=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=22Les=20Ginsberg=20(ginsberg)=22=20,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22Mike=20Shand=20 (mshand)=22=20,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =22Stefano=20Previdi=20(sprevidi)=22=20; bh=pIsVdR3IG3PpBiLTt/Rs3yonB4pvoJlQ/WzGMnfJeiM=; b=llUap9TJt/8c98XrbcSMbHyYGea7dNi7SQf3yV1w25c7AlzJG9Ls8up1rs YDwJqSWYwxUWmJk0X3PSxzT2Zj58l0cmVXNHm4iyFctFAfufNNFdXL+2J1Zi /R0csq4E1U; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=dward@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:23:37 -0700 Cc: Ross Callon Subject: [OSPF] WG LC X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: ,