Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-05.txt

Thanks Les, agreed, update on the way. Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 07:49 To: "Jeff Tantsura (jefftant.i...@gmail.com)" <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> Cc: &quo

Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] [Idr] A comment regarding the relationship between RLD and ERLD

Gunter, As I also said in Singapore - another interesting use case would be related to statistics, without going into semantics, we might need another SID in the stack to uniquely identify a tunnel (domain wide)that would result in a counter hit. RLD is crucial here. There would be some

Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07

ingress or egress > linecard)? > > 2) In the SID-binding case, if the incoming interface or outgoing > interface for a given packet received by the Binding-SID anchor node is > changed on the fly due to whatever reasons (e.g., FRR or ECMP ), how to > deal with such case? >

[Isis-wg] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-09.txt

t is a work item of the IS-IS for IP Internets WG of the IETF. Title : Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS Authors : Jeff Tantsura Uma Chunduri Sam Aldrin Les Ginsberg

Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] Link-State Routing WG charter

Wouldn’t L2 reference would be a bit outdated? Cheers, Jeff From: OSPF on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 15:09 To: Stewart Bryant , "Acee Lindem (acee)" ,

Re: [Isis-wg] early proposed charter for the Link-State Routing WG

Hi Alia, +1 on keeping FRR work in RTGWG ;-) Cheers, Jeff From: rtgwg on behalf of Alia Atlas Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 09:22 To: , OSPF List Cc: RTGWG Subject: early proposed

Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] Link-State Routing WG charter

+2 we already have a kitchen-sink protocol to do so… Cheers, Jeff From: OSPF on behalf of "Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)" Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 18:02 To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "Les Ginsberg

Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

Dear BIERers, Andrew just took the words out of my hands, my position is very similar and for exactly same reasons as described below. Option B is the technically sound and future proof choice. Thanks! Cheers, Jeff From: BIER on behalf of "Dolganow, Andrew

Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07

paragraph. If you feel – Terminology section need more/better definitions, I’d be very grateful for your suggestions. Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Paul Mattes <pamat...@microsoft.com> Date: Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 14:27 To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com&g

Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07

Xiaohu, The applicability of *elc drafts is entropy labels, *msd drafts provide more generic way to advertise capabilities (initial focus on SID imposition AKA type 1), they are not mutually exclusive and provide different functionality. Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: Xuxiaohu