Hi Bruno,
Thank you for the clarification. I understand completely what you’re trying to
do and I agree that it’s valuable.
The downside of your approach is that the Area Leader will now need
configuration of a new prefix to advertise as the Node SID. Not unthinkable.
What do the Inside Nodes
Hi Hannes,
Thanks a lot for the feedback. Yes, makes completely sense. Will take it for
the next update.
Best Wishes
Thomas
From: Hannes Gredler
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 9:31 AM
To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-DCF
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type
Thoma
>
> [WAJ] Such information is for underlay link state and should be flooded
> via IGP? The ambiguity arises from IGP summary behavior and should be
> solved by itself?
>
Well if we look at this problem from a distance while on surface it seems
like an IGP issue (not to mention some which use BGP a
Hi Tony,
Thank you for your reply.
Top posting the description of the use case that I have in mind.
Ø First off, the Area SID is 100% optional. If you choose not to use it, then
the Proxy LSP should be 100% compatible with a standard L2 node.
Good. But I think that the idea of the Area SID is
Les,
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 7:29 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN ; tony...@tony.li;
lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02.txt
Bruno –
One of the reasons to use the Bindi
