Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Zhenqiang - In regards to: [Zhenqiang]Since paths for IP flex-algo are calculated within specific MT, I think one new top-level TLV for ISIS is enough to advertise prefix reachability associated with a Flex-Algorithm, that is the one defined in section 6.1. MTID can be used to indicate it is

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hello Peter, follow-up questions with [Zhenqiang]. FA calculation is done for every MT topology independently. For IPv4 it will take all routers participating in MT0 and run the FA calculation on top of MT0. For IPv6 it will take all routers participating in MT2 and run the FA calculation on

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Peter, Is it possible for a TI-LFA path, expressed as a native IP address list, to be encoded in a Routing Header which is not necessarily Segment Routing Header, or to be encoded in LSRR option defined in RFC791 ? Regards, PSF 原始邮件 发件人：PeterPsenak

Re: [Lsr] RFC4750: OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base

Thanks, Acee. I thought about the ospfIfConfigError trap with the noError code. Would have been nice if noError was defined as 255 with 13 to 254 defined for future definitions, but that ship already sailed far and out :) Regards, Muthu On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 8:52 PM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:

Re: [Lsr] RFC4750: OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base

Hi Muthu, In that case, I would just send ospfIfRxBadPacket – it contains the local and remote IP addresses in the trap data. Or, you could use ospfIfConfigError and you could set the error to noError since there isn’t one explicitly defined for this situation. Good Luck, Acee From: Muthu

Re: [Lsr] RFC4750: OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base

Hi Acee, We aren't generating any trap today for the subnet mismatch case. We wanted to get some feedback on what would be an appropriate trap to generate from a usability standpoint, if we want to generate one.. Regards, Muthu On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 7:09 PM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi

Re: [Lsr] RFC4750: OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base

Hi Muthu, There isn’t a specific case for this specific error so I wouldn’t reuse the any of the specific ones with the trap. Like I said, some implementations don’t generate any OSPF MIB trap for this case. What are you doing today? Thanks, Acee From: Lsr on behalf of Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal

Re: [Lsr] RFC4750: OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base

Hi Acee, This is a configuration error, right? Wouldn't ospfIfConfigError trap be more appropriate? There is no good error code for this case in ospfConfigErrorType, though. Perhaps, RFC4750 could have reserved some error codes for future definitions? Regards, Muthu On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:16

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Jimmy, On 09/12/2020 13:52, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: Hi Peter, -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 6:45 PM To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Parag, Thanks for your reply. While perhaps I should make my comment clearer: I agree a node which does not support a particular address family (e.g. IPv6) will not install route for that family. While according to the rules in section 7, this node will be included in the topology for path

Re: [Lsr] RFC4750: OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base

Hi Tulasi, You definitely shouldn’t generate the netMaskMismatch trap as this is for mask mismatch detection on hello packets. You could generate the ospfIfRxBadPacket but many do not for this case. Thanks, Acee From: Lsr on behalf of Tulasi Rami Reddy N Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Zhibo, On 09/12/2020 13:05, Huzhibo wrote: Hi Peter: If Ti-LFA can protect IP flexalgo, the native IP and SR must share the same algorithm ID. that is correct. thanks, Peter thanks, Zhibo -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday,

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Peter: If Ti-LFA can protect IP flexalgo, the native IP and SR must share the same algorithm ID. thanks, Zhibo -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:16 PM To: Huzhibo ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr Subject: Re: [Lsr]

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Zhibo, On 09/12/2020 11:50, Huzhibo wrote: Hi authors, Here are some comments about IP flexalgo as follows: 1.In Flex-Algo draft, there is description about using fast-rerouting with Flex-Algo for SR-MPLS and SRv6 data plane. It is recommended that similar text be added for IP Flex-Algo.

Re: [Lsr] RFC4750: OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base

[ Sorry, My previous mail was truncated] Hi , OSPFv2 adjacency will be formed on a numbered LAN only below both conditions are met: 1. Common IP subnet 2. Matching network mask. >From the OSPFv2 MIB, there is only one error defined. ospfConfigErrorType OBJECT-TYPE

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "YANG Module for IS-IS Reverse Metric" - draft-ietf-lsr-yang-isis-reverse-metric-01

From: Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: 30 November 2020 18:14 Two thoughts isis-rmetric is a bit long as a prefix - I note that the examples use rm which is a bit short. Perhaps isis-rm te-metric contains the value if the sub-tlv is present. What if it is not present? Is there

[Lsr] RFC4750: OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base

Hi , OSPFv2 adjacency will be formed on a numbered LAN only when 1. Common IP subnet 2.matching network mask. >From the Thanks, TUlasi. ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi authors, Here are some comments about IP flexalgo as follows: 1. In Flex-Algo draft, there is description about using fast-rerouting with Flex-Algo for SR-MPLS and SRv6 data plane. It is recommended that similar text be added for IP Flex-Algo. 2. Is Application-Specific Link

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

IP Algorithm SUBTLV indicate the participation for particular flex algo by node. Participation doesn't depend on whether it support ipv4 prefix or ipv6 prefix. Node which doesn't support particular family will not install that family route. Regards Parag Juniper Business Use Only From:

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Jimmy, On 09/12/2020 11:10, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: Hi authors, Here is one comment following the previous discussion on the mail list and the IETF meeting. The IP Algorithm TLV is defined to advertise the IP Flex-Algorithm participation information, there is no separate TLV for IPv4 or

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi authors, Here is one comment following the previous discussion on the mail list and the IETF meeting. The IP Algorithm TLV is defined to advertise the IP Flex-Algorithm participation information, there is no separate TLV for IPv4 or IPv6 Flex-Algo participation. If some nodes participate