Aijun and Ketan: Acee (lsr co-chair) would like to confirm that section 8 and section 9 avoid the issues from LSR discussion on the IGP Stub-links draft? Would you please respond to this email with your answer.
Thanks, Sue -----Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:59 PM To: Susan Hares <[email protected]> Cc: lsr <[email protected]>; idr-chairs <[email protected]>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]>; Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) Hi Sue, > On May 26, 2026, at 12:39 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: > > Acee: > > If the data comes from IGP (OSPF and ISIS), the answer is yes. > > However, section 8 allows for an Inter-AS link information from a BGP peer > (BGP-LS from BGP only) to set the source on the inter-AS links as either > static or "directly" connected. Please review sections 8 and 9. > > Do these two sections provide enough detail to avoid the issues from the IGP > Stub-links draft? I would think so and if the information were to advertised in OSPF or IS-IS, the existing TE encodings would be used. However, this is a good question for the authors. We don't want to rehash these stub-links drafts under any circumstances. Thanks, Acee > > Sue > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__acee.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=XHwqK-Drj7w7cMqyDXZKjxlLfGXjGTxx3T-UuL-yCsQ&e=> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:32 PM > To: Susan Hares <[email protected]> > Cc: lsr <[email protected]>; idr-chairs <[email protected]>; Dongjie (Jimmy) > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__jie.dong-40huawei.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=HmcfjWaONcvjfOM3T0M9VjUMlj7bDdNl0zBc2zfMaEE&e=>; > Ketan Talaulikar > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ketant.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=q4NxSEJ1gICgPdCBfJ6q7ftDKSDRtOi9WO5nNsRYsHs&e=> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: > draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to > 6/1) > > Speaking as both WG chair and WG member: > > I don't have a problem with this draft as long as RFC 5392 (OSPF) and RFC > 9346 (IS-IS) are used as the source of the BGP-LS inter-AS topo information. > We don't have time in LSR to rehash the IGP stub-links drafts just because > IDR is advancing this document. > > Thanks, > Acee > >> On May 26, 2026, at 8:45 AM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Greetings LSR: >> IDR has reached consensus to publish >> draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32. >> This draft defines a new type within the BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability >> Information (NLRI) for an Inter-AS Link, as well as three new >> type-length-values (TLVs) for the BGP-LS Inter-AS Link descriptor. It >> allows the following two types of use cases: 1) IGP (ospf or isis) to >> BGP-LS and 2) BGP-only (import data from static/direct interfaces) to >> BGP-LS). >> Please respond to this message if you object to the publication of the >> draft. Otherwise, the IDR chairs will forward this to the IESG for >> publication on 6/1/2026. >> Cheerily, Sue Hares >> Shepherd >> IDR co-chair _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
