Hi Aijun, I am trying to summarize my understanding here just to make sure we are all on the same page. There are also some suggestions on how we might be able to make some progress here.
1) What "kind" of stub links is the draft proposing to address? (a) Inter-AS links (this was the original use case AFAIK), or also (b) the link towards hosts/servers where IGP is not enabled (or enabled in "passive" mode). 2) For (a) above, the necessary IGP extensions (RFC5316/RFC5392) exist and suffice when the link is going to be used for Inter-AS TE use cases. Nothing more is required. If these IGP extensions cannot be used, then please provide good justification(s) for it so the WG can evaluate it. 3) If the goal also includes (b), then clearly RFC5316/5392 do not address the IGP gap. But then good use case(s) are needed to justify the requirement (b) for the WG to evaluate. 4) For any new IGP extension, please clarify if the goal is simply the distribution of topology information into BGP-LS or if there is any use for its by IGPs. If there is an IGP use, please provide details. My suggestion is to cover this as part of the slides so it can be perhaps discussed in your LSR slot. Eventually, I hope all of this gets captured in the draft as well. Note: You don't need to respond to me on this thread. Thanks, Ketan
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
