Re: draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-05.txt

[Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>]

> * DC circuits spec is from 1995; they are practically dead/useless today, 
>who cares about the feature?  They're junk in the spec.

Ok, you don't need 1793 for its original purpose, that's fine.

> * Now, this spec creates a dependency on DC circuit spec; this is useless 
>if DC circuit spec is not implemented in all OSPF routers

Well, most OSPF extensions are useless if the extension isn't implemented
in all OSPF routers.  If vendors want to offer this ability they can
implement 1793 for this purpose, even though they don't need to implement
it for its original purpose.

> * The bandwidth required for flooding a few LSA's every 30 minutes is 
>minimal.  Why bother with something like this which could lead to a lot of 
>issues?

I'll bring this issue back; I know it's not just a thought
experiment since there are implementations presumably stemming
from customer request...

>==> uhh, no.  what if you flood LSA's with noage bit, they stick around
>forever and are never purged?  I'd guess that changes the OSPF protocol
>assumptions quite a bit.  I didn't bother to check how well they were 
>documented in the OSPF DC circuits doc, but I wouldn't count on it.

1793 has the beloved 8-word security considerations section;
2328 talks about authentication but doesn't talk about problems
or consequences.  I agree that this is a problem.

  Bill