Hi Bruno,
> At this point, area proxy spec is clear with regards to nominal behavior. So
> indeed we are discussing error handling / transitions. (and thank you for
> considering those cases, much appreciated).
>
> From memory, my understanding is the area proxy nominal behaviour requires:
tion: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03.txt
Hi Bruno,
“A Level 2 LSP that contains the Area Proxy TLV MUST NOT be flooded to an
Outside Router. »
Agreed (so far)
“A Level 2 LSP with a source system identifier that is found in the Level 1
LSDB MUST NOT be flooded to an Outside Router.”
I’m not
Hi Tony,
Thanks for your reply.
All good to me.
Thanks,
--Bruno
From: Tony Li [mailto:tony1ath...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2020 2:18 AM
To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03.txt
Hi Bruno,
> “A Level 2 LSP that contains the Area Proxy TLV MUST NOT be flooded to an
> Outside Router. »
> Agreed (so far)
>
> “A Level 2 LSP with a source system identifier that is found in the Level 1
> LSDB MUST NOT be flooded to an Outside Router.”
> I’m not sure to agree.
> If that
Hi Bruno,
Thank you for your comments.
> 1)
> OLD: The
>advertisement in the Proxy LSP informs the remainder of the network
>that packets directed to the SID will be forwarded by one of the
>Inside Edge Nodes and the Area SID will be consumed.
>
> NEW:
> The
>advertisement in
Les,
> The statement “the … Prefix SID does NOT have the semantics that we want and
> causes deleterious side-effects” is FALSE.
Ahem. I disagree. No need to be rude about it.
> There is an alternative here:
>
> Given that there isn’t any defined use case for the Area Prefix/SID, you
Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03.txt
Les,
[Les:] Thanx for clarifying this. A careful reading of the draft supports what
you say, but as this point could be easily overlooked it might be worth
emphasizing this in the draft
Les,
> [Les:] Thanx for clarifying this. A careful reading of the draft supports
> what you say, but as this point could be easily overlooked it might be worth
> emphasizing this in the draft.
Noted and enhanced.
> We do NOT require that the Area Leader candidates have identical
>
Tony –
Inline.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 8:56 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03.txt
Hi Les,
[Les:] Any one of the IERs can be elected Area Leader, therefore all
Hi Les,
> [Les:] Any one of the IERs can be elected Area Leader, therefore all of them
> have to be configured with the Area Prefix and associated SID.
The Area Leader may not be an IER. In fact, in an important use case for us,
the area is a leaf-spine topology. The Area Leader is one of
Tony –
Inline.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 5:40 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03.txt
Les,
As per the draft:
Area Proxy TLV is advertised by IERs in their L2 LSP
Les,
> As per the draft:
>
> Area Proxy TLV is advertised by IERs in their L2 LSP.
> Area Proxy TLV is NOT advertised in the Proxy LSP.
> So how do the OERs become aware of the
>
> “prefix and SID that represents the entirety of the Inside Area to the
> Outside Area”
>
> ???
>
> I
not claim that you need a new SID
type when you don’t.
Les
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 4:02 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03.txt
Hi Les,
You have chosen to assign
Hi Les,
> You have chosen to assign a prefix as the “Area Destination”.
Are you sure you have the right document? The word “Destination” does not
appear anywhere within
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03
14 matches
Mail list logo
