[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Working Group Last Call on "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF" (draft-ietf-ospf-mt-03.txt) - Corrected

To: OSPF at PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call on "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF" (draft-ietf-ospf-mt-03.txt) - Corrected
From: Naiming Shen <naiming at CISCO.COM>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 23:39:33 -0700
In-reply-to: <42541E37.4070805@cisco.com>
References: <200504061334.j36DYIe65964@merlot.juniper.net> <42541E37.4070805@cisco.com>
Reply-to: Mailing List <OSPF at PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF at PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)

< cut ...>

As for requirements, the example most often given is when a SP wants to provide separate topologies for unicast and multicast services.


I was told at least one ISP used MT isis to link remote IPv6 POPs
through GRE tunnels, IPv4 topology was not enabled on those tunnels.

thanks.
- Naiming

Note that there is a similar proposal in the ISIS WG so I'd venture to say that there is some agreement on the requirement - draft-ietf-isis-wg-multi-topology-09.txt.
Thanks,
Acee

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Working Group Last Call on "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF" (draft-ietf-ospf-mt-03.txt) - Corrected
  - From: Yakov Rekhter

References:
- Re: Working Group Last Call on "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF" (draft-ietf-ospf-mt-03.txt) - Corrected
  - From: Yakov Rekhter
- Re: Working Group Last Call on "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF" (draft-ietf-ospf-mt-03.txt) - Corrected
  - From: Acee Lindem

Prev by Date: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-iana-00
Next by Date: Equal-cost path
Previous by thread: Re: Working Group Last Call on "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF" (draft-ietf-ospf-mt-03.txt) - Corrected
Next by thread: Re: Working Group Last Call on "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF" (draft-ietf-ospf-mt-03.txt) - Corrected
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread