Subject: [Lsr] OSPFv3 Implementations of draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 06:10:37 -0700

Dear lsr WG:

If you’ve been following the progress of this document, you will have
noticed that it is already in IESG Evaluation.

IANA discovered a typo in the draft; the current text says "Bit 0x04 in the
"OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits) registry has been assigned to the E-Flag
(ELC Flag)”.   However, the value assigned by IANA is 0x40.

Does anyone have an OSPFv3 implementation of this document?  If so, which
value is used, 0x04 or 0x40?  Are there deployments?

The Shepherd report doesn’t mention any implementations, and with the help
of the authors it has already been confirmed that cisco, Nokia and Huawei
don’t have an OSPFv3 implementation.

Please respond by COB on May 14.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 13:22:35 +0200

Hi,

I'm going to update the draft to use bit 0x40 in "OSPFv3 Prefix Options 
(8 bits) registry" for E-Flag (ELC Flag).

thanks,
Peter

On 07/05/2020 15:10, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> IANA discovered a typo in the draft; the current text says "Bit 0x04 in 
> the "OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits) registry has been assigned to the 
> E-Flag (ELC Flag)”.   However, the value assigned by IANA is 0x40.
> 
> 
> Does anyone have an OSPFv3 implementation of this document?  If so, 
> which value is used, 0x04 or 0x40?  Are there deployments?
> 
> 
> The Shepherd report doesn’t mention any implementations, and with the 
> help of the authors it has already been confirmed that cisco, Nokia and 
> Huawei don’t have an OSPFv3 implementation.
> 
>