Hi Ron,
So here is the suggestion ...
Currently the encoded values of SABM are:
SABM (variable length): Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask
(SABM Length * 8) bits
This field is omitted if SABM Length is 0.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...
Robert,
The following information types need to be distributed :
1. Application Independent Link Attributes
* Mentioned in Section 3.2 of RFC 8919
* Not mentioned in Section 3.2 of RFC 8919
2. Application Configuration Information that is associated with an interface
3.
Hi Ron,
Please kindly enlighten me on your line of thinking ...
Let's consider your list:
Total physical bandwidth
Number of LAG elements
Bandwidth of smallest lag member
Latency
Then as a method of distributing them you choose your option 3 which reads:
"Configure this information in a few
Acee,
So, let us discuss whether there is a good reason for
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-con to specify ASLA !
Link attributes are different from application configuration information. Link
attributes are properties of a link. They are independent of the applications
that use them. The following
Peter,
>no, I don't want to use affinities to do that. That's the whole point.
>ASLA gives you per link per application signaling. No need to use affinities.
The usecase you are describing to exclude links from an application topology is
very straight
forward and how this is done is defined by
Hi Aijun,
I think that would be an excellent idea.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Aijun Wang
Date: Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:17 PM
To: Acee Lindem
Cc: 'Aijun Wang' , 'Gyan Mishra'
, "draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attrib...@ietf.org"
, "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: RE: [Lsr] [Stub-Link-Attributes]
The WG Adoption call has ended and there is sufficient support for WG adoption.
Please republish the drafts as:
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-yang-00.txt
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-srv6-yang-00.txt
Note that the IS-IS draft name should also include "lsr-".
Thanks,
Chris and Acee
On 7/22/21,
We still need IPR declarations from Kamran Raza and Dan Ye.
Thanks,
Chris and Acee
On 7/22/21, 6:50 AM, "Christian Hopps" wrote:
Hi Folks,
This begins a 3 week WG Adoption Call for the following related YANG drafts:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hu-isis-srv6-yang/
Thanks Yaron.
-Qin
-邮件原件-
发件人: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:yaronf.i...@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2021年8月17日 15:15
收件人: Qin Wu ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; tom
petch ; sec...@ietf.org
抄送: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support@ietf.org
主题: Re: Secdir last call review of
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
Title : IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in
the PCE discovery
Authors : Diego R. Lopez
A new version (-07) has been submitted for
draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-07.txt
The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
Looks good to me. Thank you!
Yaron
On 8/17/21, 03:17, "Qin Wu" wrote:
Sorry for late followup, here is the update, the diff is
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-06
Yaron, let authors know if your comments are addressed in
12 matches
Mail list logo
