Hi Les,
Please check inline below.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 11:05 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
wrote:
> Ketan –
>
>
>
> To add to what Tony has said…one thing which we did not want this draft to
> become was for it to be the place where a definition of the “key” for every
> TLV was defined.
>
Greetings:
I want to thank all the people who contributed to this WG adoption call.
There are four points I pull from the adoption call:
1. IDR participants desire to discuss other potential ways to pass data
currently past in IDR
I will start a thread noted as “BGP-LS” alternative. This
Great – we’ll reserve time.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Tony Li on behalf of Tony Li
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 2:44 PM
To: Acee Lindem
Cc: Ketan Talaulikar ,
"draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-...@ietf.org"
, lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Handling multiple Extended IS Reachability TLVs for a link
Yes, we
Yes, we will. We’re still discussing about who will present. I can if there
are no other volunteers. You’re welcome to put my name down for now.
T
> On Jun 29, 2022, at 11:26 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> Speaking as WG chair:
>
> Can someone present this at IETF 114? It seems like
Speaking as WG chair:
Can someone present this at IETF 114? It seems like there more interest than
most of the other agenda requests.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Lsr on behalf of Tony Li
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 12:58 PM
To: Ketan Talaulikar
Cc: "draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-...@ietf.org"
,
Ketan –
To add to what Tony has said…one thing which we did not want this draft to
become was for it to be the place where a definition of the “key” for every TLV
was defined.
Perhaps in the text you quote “MUST” should not be capitalized as we are simply
describing the generic logic required.
Hi Ketan,
> On Jun 29, 2022, at 9:33 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> No. It does not work. Take the following text from Sec 4.
>
>If this is insufficient sub-TLV space, then the node MAY advertise
>additional instances of the Extended IS Reachability TLV. The key
>
Hi Tony,
No. It does not work. Take the following text from Sec 4.
If this is insufficient sub-TLV space, then the node MAY advertise
additional instances of the Extended IS Reachability TLV. The key
information MUST be replicated identically and the additional sub-TLV
space may be
Hi Ketan,
We are hoping to not be that detailed in this document. As soon as we become a
catalog of LSPs, then the applicability of our statements is weakened with
respect to TLVs that aren’t in the catalog.
What we’re trying to accomplish is to write some general rules that we all
Hello Authors,
I was pointed to your draft while looking around for some clarifications on
how information for a single object can be split across multiple TLVs in
ISIS.
Having gone through your document, I believe it is very useful and I am
glad to see that you have taken on this work.
While
Hi All,
We have posted an update to this WG document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-04
Most of the changes are editorial. The only content change is the
introduction of new "Route Types" to enable distinction between Type1/Type2
external and NSSA
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 : OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6
Authors : Zhenbin Li
Zhibo Hu
12 matches
Mail list logo
