Uma –
Inline.
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Uma Chunduri
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 10:49 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-01
As asked by chairs I was trying to write the shepherd report on this doc.
Have few quick questions on this work:
1.
Observation: The new tex
Hi Huaimo,
Thank you for your proposal.
The area leader sub-tlv is only advertised by systems that are willing to be
area leader. Presumably, that’s not necessarily all of the ones who support
dynamic flooding. Thus, what you’re proposing moves one byte from one TLV into
another TLV that wi
As asked by chairs I was trying to write the shepherd report on this doc.
Have few quick questions on this work:
1.
Observation: The new text added in 2.2.3 (PR and PA bits) is almost similar
to section 2.2.1 (RR and RA bits)
Now is there any relation of the timer here with T3 (which would hav
And…BTW…there is already a draft defining the necessary BGP-LS extensions:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr/
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 5:55 AM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; olivier.dug...@orange.c
That would be for newer documents, these documents have been long overdue with
a protracted discussion. I don’t think we want to delay them anymore. Also,
including the BGP-LS is somewhat dependent on the complexity. For example, it
made sense to decouple SR BGP-LS encodings from the IGP drafts.
> With respect to your comments on BGP-LS, this is out of scope for LSR.
During last IETF it has been communicated by IDR chairs that there is an
agreement that all IGP extensions in LSR WG will define in the same
document also extensions to BGP-LS so the work is not duplicated and that
IDR will s
Hi Olivier,
I think the WG's energy has been completely focused on the dynamic flooding and
these WG last calls didn't get the deserved attention.
As for as your comments, the first two were discussed for over a year and half.
There were other advantages as well. For example, the link attribut
Olivier,
please see inline:
On 23/05/2019 11:56 , olivier.dug...@orange.com wrote:
Dear all
As there is no more exchange about the two mentioned drafts since 3 weeks, I'll
try to summarize the exchange and
the requested modifications.
The drafts proposed to extended IS-IS respectively OSPF t
Hi Huaimo,
thanks for the suggestion, I think it's good one to include.
One side effect of your proposal is that when the new ID or DR ID is
inserted, it may cause other IDs/DR IDs to change their index, as you
can not assume you can simply add to the end of the list anymore.
thanks,
Peter
