Olivier,
+1 Peter.
There’s has been significant amount of discussions on the topic some time ago,
mostly with Chris Bowers. Please take a look, should provide more context.
Regards,
Jeff
> On Apr 12, 2019, at 15:27, Peter Psenak wrote:
>
> Hi Oliver,
>
> There are two major purposes served
Hi Les,
Le 12/04/2019 à 15:31, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) a écrit :
> +1 to what Peter has stated.
>
> Olivier -
>
> We are aware that link attribute management/application has challenges -
> which is why we are careful to allow sharing of attributes when appropriate.
> But to state that there is
Hello Peter,
Le 12/04/2019 à 15:27, Peter Psenak a écrit :
> Hi Oliver,
>
> There are two major purposes served by the drafts:
>
> 1)Support of incongruent topologies for different applications
Don't understand. What do you mean ?
>
> 2)Advertisement of application specific values even on links
+1 to what Peter has stated.
Olivier -
We are aware that link attribute management/application has challenges - which
is why we are careful to allow sharing of attributes when appropriate.
But to state that there is no problem and that things can be addressed with
existing IGP functionality if
Hi Oliver,
There are two major purposes served by the drafts:
1)Support of incongruent topologies for different applications
2)Advertisement of application specific values even on links that are in
use by multiple applications
These issues are clearly articulated in the Introductions of both
