Hi Everyone,
I support adoption and I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft
Best Regards,
--Original Message-
from：ChristianHopps
To：lsr@ietf.org;
CC：lsr-cha...@ietf.org;lsr-...@ietf.org;cho...@chopps.org;draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attribu...@ietf.org;
Data ：2022-01-04
Hi, Robert:
I think redistribute the route with the additional cost is possible but we
should consider the aggregated cost may changed upon the server status,
although not very frequently or in one controllable manner.
The aggregated cost is measured and calculated at the egress router. It’s
Aijun,
Such metric will be same(because of the ANYCAST address be advertised
> simultaneously via R1/R2/R3 at the same time for one application server,
> for example, S1/aa08::4450).
>
That is not really correct.
On each router R1 or R2 or R3 when you for example redistribute or
originate in
Hi, Acee:
Actually I think so. We would like to hear more comments for the two approaches.
It’s better to update the draft based on the consensus or through discussion.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Jan 17, 2022, at 21:15, Acee Lindem (acee)
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Aijung,
> So I guess you’re
Hi,
I've read this document and support its adoption.
My understanding of this document is that it aims to identify a link attached
to an IGP node, while the link itself does not run IGP. Some attributes of such
link may be used in determining the path to an external network via that link.
