Hi, Folks:
draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-07 has been resubmitted to LSR as
draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00 based on Chairs' suggestion.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
This draft define IGP extension for PCEP security support,
Peter,
As previously stated - I'm against gating, it should be developed in parallel
and with cooperation with the ongoing/existing work.
Note - there's a document (albeit expired, it played its role) that talks about
generic DC Routing requirements, work in LSR would be scooped to LSR only.
So
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 : Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF
Authors : Jeff Tantsura
Uma
Hi Tony,
Regarding to the issues/problems you mentioned for flooding reduction
(using distributed algorithm), can you give some more details?
Best Regards,
Huaimo
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony Przygienda
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 2:59 PM
To:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 2:05 AM Peter Psenak wrote:
> ...
> And to be
> completely honest, the requirements are pretty straightforward for
> anyone that is familiar with the protocols' operation.
>
>
The signalling is quite simple as often the case, good quality algorithms,
especially
Acee
Tweaking the subject line slightly since this is a more generic point.
My point about
refine "version/ospfv2/ospfv2" {
must "derived-from-or-self( "
+ "../../../../../../../../../../"
+ "rt:type, 'ospf:ospfv2')" {
description "OSPFv2 LSA.";
was more about the
Jeff, All,
we have added many extensions to IGP protocols over the years. Many
times multiple solutions were proposed for the same or similar problem
and WG picked from the set, many times multiple solutions were merged or
combined together. We never asked for a requirement document. Even for
