> -Original Message-
> From: Dongjie (Jimmy)
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 3:04 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Peter Psenak
> ; xie...@chinatelecom.cn; lsr
> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based
> Virtual Transport Network
Good question. In short you may need some mechanism in the forwarding plane to
isolate the traffic in the default topology from the traffic in other
topologies. Some of the candidate technologies are described in
From: Robert Raszuk
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
I found there are so many discussion later, so I think in fact our opinion are
consistent. : )
What I wanted to say before is that L2-member can not configure MT-ID, not say
L2-bundle (it is a L3 interface) itself.
According to Les
Out of pure curiosity here - how are you going to stop any other traffic
(SR or non SR) to take as much as it likes of any link being part of the
default topology ?
Lsr mailing list
Thanks for your comments.
My current understanding is TLV 25 could reference the associated L3 link
advertised in either TLV 22 or 222.
With your proposal of keeping things orthogonal, does it mean that TLV 25 would
only be used to advertise the member link attributes of the
Thanks for your review and comments.
Please see my replies inline with [Jie]:
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 3:06 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Peter Psenak
; xie...@chinatelecom.cn; lsr
Subject: RE: [Lsr]
I think the overall concept of ifit is interesting enough. My concern is that
we aren't adding things to routing protocols (in particular IGPs) simply to
allow for another way of configuring applications in the network. This is what
netconf/YANG etc, are for.
If I were trying to code
On 30/03/2020 05:13, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
Thanks for your reply, please see inline with [Jie 3]:
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 11:45 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; xie...@chinatelecom.cn; lsr
On 29/03/2020 17:57, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
We are in agreement.
I never said that an L2 Bundle member could/should be associated with a
ok, but that is what the authors of the draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt are
proposing. That's the reason why I
The format of the TE-attribute sub-TLVs is defined and does not change based
upon the TLV in which it is advertised. So I do not see that any additional
specification is required.
In rereading draft-dong-lsr-sr-enhanced-vpn, I am wondering what is the scope
you desire for link
Thanks for your attention.
Quoting [draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework], IFIT (In-situ Flow Information
Telemetry) introduces a high-level reference framework that shows how network
data-plane monitoring applications can be deployed. This framework identifies
the components that are
Mail list logo