On Friday, December 19, 2014 04:14:17 PM Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) wrote: > Indeed the reason I raised the issue in the summer was to > make sure we do not disrupt existing LDPv4 deployments > and that we do not need to upgrade a LDPv4 node which > does not comply to this LDPv6 spec. So, both proposed > methods put the onus on the LDPv6 compliant node to > automatically detect a router which is not compliant to > LDPv6 such that it will not send to that node LDP IPv6 > FECs and IPv6 addresses. > > From that perspective, the draft now addressed the issue. > My latest message was raising concerns about the > specific method added to the draft and by which the > LDPv6 compliant LSR goes about addressing the issue. > > I hope this clarifies the situation. Thanks, Mustapha. Mark.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.