Hi all,
You can find all LSR meeting materials including agenda, slides etc. at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/session/lsr
Note: both the presentation slides for the upcoming flooding speed discussion
have been uploaded. If you’re interested you can look at them before the
meeting.
Thanks, Mahesh.
> On Jul 27, 2021, at 3:52 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani
> wrote:
>
> The surgery that I performed on the draft, and can be seen in the attached
> files both as a diff and the full file was to remove the mpls-te module
> dependency from this draft. We should therefore at least not b
Hi Ron,
I think you are not taking into consideration the full picture here and
instead you are only focusing only on signaling.
So let's take your example of "link's total physical bandwidth" Yes physics
wise it is generic, by nature.
And that claim is true too: "It will always be the same for
RFC Editor state is MISSREF, as part of cluster C336:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C336. If I’m untangling the
information there correctly, I think it’s blocked on (at least)
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te.
Was the surgery that Tom mentions, expected to clear it out of MISSREF? If s
Peter,
I agree that we will need to update the flexago draft. But before we do that,
can you explain why we need to maintain mandatory use of ASLA?
AFAIKS, by their nature, some attributes are generic while others are
application specific. For example, a link's total physical bandwidth is
gene
Adding John (AD).
On Tuesday, July 27, 2021, 10:45:07 a.m. EDT, tom petch
wrote:
From: Reshad Rahman
Sent: 21 May 2021 00:03
FYI, Mahesh did the extraction of the mpls-te from draft-ietf-bfd-yang and it's
been submitted to the RFC Editor.
Two months have passed and I see no chan
From: Reshad Rahman
Sent: 21 May 2021 00:03
FYI, Mahesh did the extraction of the mpls-te from draft-ietf-bfd-yang and it's
been submitted to the RFC Editor.
Two months have passed and I see no change in the RFC Editor queue. Whatever
was done would appear to have been not enough. I was e
