Re: [Lsr] Adjacency SID and Passive Interface

2019-05-10 Thread Jeff Tantsura
+1 Regards, Jeff > On May 10, 2019, at 05:22, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: > > +1 > > Hi Oliver, > > Technically Adj-SID refers to an IGP adjacency between two nodes as per > RFC8402 semantics. I don't think a passive (stub) link falls under that > category. It would be better to

Re: [Lsr] Adjacency SID and Passive Interface

2019-05-10 Thread olivier.dugeon
Thanks everybody for your answer. It is clear that Adj-SID is linked to the existence of an IS-IS adjacency with a neighbour, thus it is not usable for passive interface or inter-domain link. Regards Olivier Le 10/05/2019 à 14:22, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) a écrit : > +1 > > Hi Oliver, > >

Re: [Lsr] Adjacency SID and Passive Interface

2019-05-10 Thread Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
+1 Hi Oliver, Technically Adj-SID refers to an IGP adjacency between two nodes as per RFC8402 semantics. I don't think a passive (stub) link falls under that category. It would be better to define a passive link separately (somewhat on lines of what was done for inter-AS TE) so that it does

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Call for "IS-IS Extensions to Support Routing over IPv6 Dataplane" - draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-05.txt

2019-05-10 Thread Zhuangshunwan
Support! Thanks, Shunwan From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2019 9:50 PM To: lsr@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Call for "IS-IS Extensions to Support Routing over IPv6 Dataplane" -

Re: [Lsr] [spring] Adjacency SID and Passive Interface

2019-05-10 Thread Alexander Vainshtein
Hi all, The life span of an unprotected Adj-SID matches the life span of the corresponding IGP adjacency. This means that there can be no Adj-SIDs on passive IGP interfaces because no IGP adjacencies are formed across thesd interfaces. Inter-AS interfaces can be associated with BGP Peer

Re: [Lsr] Adjacency SID and Passive Interface

2019-05-10 Thread Christian Franke
On 5/10/19 9:58 AM, olivier.dug...@orange.com wrote: > In the current state of Segment Routing drafts, do you think it is possible > to advertise > Adjacency SID on such passive or inter-domain interfaces or do we need to > specify this behaviour > in a new draft ? > > For me I don't see

[Lsr] Adjacency SID and Passive Interface

2019-05-10 Thread olivier.dugeon
Dear all, I have a question about (LAN)-Adjacency SID and passive interfaces. In both OSPF and IS-IS it is possible to configure an interface in passive mode so that the IGP will advertise this interface, in particular the TE information associated to this interface. RFC 5392, respectively RFC

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Call for "IS-IS Extensions to Support Routing over IPv6 Dataplane" - draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-05.txt

2019-05-10 Thread Mercia Zheng (merciaz)
Support. Thanks, -Mercia From: Lsr on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" Date: Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 6:50 AM To: "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Call for "IS-IS Extensions to Support Routing over IPv6 Dataplane" - draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-05.txt We been