Hi all,

We’ve updated our draft to revise the TLV encodings along the lines of the 
discussions we’ve been having.

1) The Area Proxy Router Capability is removed.
2) The Inside Node TLV is removed. Instead, the Area Proxy TLV is used instead.
3) The Area Segment SID is advertised inside of a SID/Label Binding TLV. While 
we discussed using 
a flag within this TLV to denote that this was an Area Segment SID, after 
looking at it, it seemed simpler
and more consistent to use a sub-TLV.

Please review and comment.

Sarah, Vivek, Gyan, and Tony

> Begin forwarded message:
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-01.txt
> Date: July 7, 2020 at 8:14:58 AM PDT
> To: "Gyan Mishra" <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>, "Vivek Ilangovan" 
> <ilango...@arista.com>, "Sarah Chen" <sarahc...@arista.com>, "Tony Li" 
> <tony...@tony.li>, "Gyan S. Mishra" <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>, "Yunxia 
> Chen" <sarahc...@arista.com>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-01.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Tony Li and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> Name:         draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy
> Revision:     01
> Title:                Area Proxy for IS-IS
> Document date:        2020-07-07
> Group:                lsr
> Pages:                19
> URL:            
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-01.txt
> Status:         
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-01
> Htmlized:       
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy
> Diff:           
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-01
> Abstract:
>   Link state routing protocols have hierarchical abstraction already
>   built into them.  However, when lower levels are used for transit,
>   they must expose their internal topologies to each other, leading to
>   scale issues.
>   To avoid this, this document discusses extensions to the IS-IS
>   routing protocol that would allow level 1 areas to provide transit,
>   yet only inject an abstraction of the level 1 topology into level 2.
>   Each level 1 area is represented as a single level 2 node, thereby
>   enabling greater scale.
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> The IETF Secretariat

Lsr mailing list

Reply via email to