[Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric-00.txt

2020-01-06 Thread internet-drafts
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 : OSPF Reverse Metric Authors : Ketan Talaulikar Peter Psenak

[Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-00.txt

2020-01-06 Thread internet-drafts
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 : OSPF Strict-Mode for BFD Authors : Ketan Talaulikar Peter Psenak

[Lsr] 答复: Is it necessary to expand the IS-IS level to 8?

2020-01-06 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Les: You are right. I investigate again the PDU format/purpose and found the IIH is not the right place to carry this information. Let’s discuss the passive interface solution in another thread “Methods to label the interfaces within ISIS”. Best Regards. Aijun Wang China

[Lsr] Methods to label the passive interfaces within ISIS

2020-01-06 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Robert: Thanks for your information. TLV-22 is used to describe the IS neighbor and the link between them. As for the passive interfaces, there may be no neighbor. It seems the sub-TLV within this TLV is not the appropriate place to put this information? P.S. I changed the thread

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric

2020-01-06 Thread Christian Hopps
The document is adopted. Authors, please post a new version with name draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric-00. Thanks, Chris. > On Dec 13, 2019, at 6:28 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Hi LSR WG and Draft Authors, > > This begins a 2 week WG adoption poll for the following draft: > >

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode

2020-01-06 Thread Christian Hopps
That should be draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode Thanks, Chris. > On Jan 6, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Christian Hopps wrote: > > The document is adopted. > > Authors, please repost with the name draft-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-00. > > Thanks, > Chris & Acee. > >> On Dec 13, 2019, at 6:54 AM,

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode

2020-01-06 Thread Christian Hopps
The document is adopted. Authors, please repost with the name draft-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-00. Thanks, Chris & Acee. > On Dec 13, 2019, at 6:54 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Hi LSR WG and Draft Authors, > > This begins a 2 week WG adoption poll for the following draft: > >

Re: [Lsr] Is it necessary to expand the IS-IS level to 8?

2020-01-06 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Aijun – Hmmm…let me see if I understand you. You and some other folks have an as yet unpublished idea to use some of the bits in circuit type field and therefore you are not happy that the hierarchy draft will use all of the circuit-type bits for levels. Is this correct?? It is hard to

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv

2020-01-06 Thread Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Support the publication -Original Message- From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps Sent: 03 January 2020 00:37 To: lsr@ietf.org Cc: lsr-...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ; Antoni Przygienda Subject: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv This begins a 2 week WG Last Call,

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv

2020-01-06 Thread bruno.decraene
I support publication of the draft. Improving interoperability is definitely something that I support (1), in particular for mission critical protocols. Thank you to authors & Alvaro for the work and the initiative. Bruno (1) Including during error conditions ;-) -Original Message-

Re: [Lsr] 答复: Is it necessary to expand the IS-IS level to 8?

2020-01-06 Thread Robert Raszuk
Aijun, > We just want to distinguish the passive interfaces from other normal > interfaces within ISIS domain. It seems that the “Attribute Flags” that > described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7794#section-2.1 is the most > appropriate place to extend to carry such information. > Really ?

[Lsr] 答复: Is it necessary to expand the IS-IS level to 8?

2020-01-06 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Les: We just want to distinguish the passive interfaces from other normal interfaces within ISIS domain. It seems that the “Attribute Flags” that described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7794#section-2.1 is the most appropriate place to extend to carry such information. If so, we can