Re: [Lsr] "IGP Extensions for Segment Routing Service Segment" -draft-lz-lsr-igp-sr-service-segments-02

2020-07-28 Thread liu.yao71
Hi Acee, Thanks for reading the draft. Yes, the main purpose of this draft is to carry the segment segment information via IGP so only one node per AS need to be connected with the controller through BGP-LS. With the existing BGP-LS extension draft, it is certainly one solution to configure

[Lsr] "IGP Extensions for Segment Routing Service Segment" - draft-lz-lsr-igp-sr-service-segments-02

2020-07-28 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Speaking as WG member: It seems the sole purpose of this draft is to get service segment information from nodes in the IGP domain to the IGP node that has a BGP session with the controller. You don’t need to put this information into the IGP in order to do this. Simply configure BGP sessions

[Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-yang-isis-reverse-metric-01.txt

2020-07-28 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 : YANG Module for IS-IS Reverse Metric Author : Christian Hopps Filename:

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt

2020-07-28 Thread bruno.decraene
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] An interesting encoding – note that the draft doesn’t use it for forwarding. [Bruno] Agreed that the distinction between routing and reachability information is a key point. --Bruno Acee From: Bruno Decraene mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>>

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt

2020-07-28 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
An interesting encoding – note that the draft doesn’t use it for forwarding. Acee From: Bruno Decraene Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 5:51 AM To: Robert Raszuk , Acee Lindem Cc: Aijun Wang , Zhibo Hu , Yaqun Xiao , "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Lsr] New Version Notification for

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt

2020-07-28 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
See my response to Aijun... Please provide topologies where the section 6.1 solution doesn't work. Acee On 7/27/20, 10:03 PM, "Huzhibo" wrote: Hi Acee: In fact, we have meet some scenarios where redundant paths cannot be deployed within a area. Especially when the access area uses

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt

2020-07-28 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Hi Aijun, You did misunderstand me so let me be brief. 1. By summarized prefix, I mean an unreachable prefix subsumed by the summary advertisement. I thought this would be clear from the context of your draft. So my point is that signaling unreachability from one ABR is only useful if the

[Lsr] Protocol Action: 'Invalid TLV Handling in IS-IS' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-03.txt)

2020-07-28 Thread The IESG
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Invalid TLV Handling in IS-IS' (draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-03.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Link State Routing Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Martin Vigoureux and Deborah Brungard.

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt

2020-07-28 Thread bruno.decraene
Another data point about advertising more detailed reachability/unreachability: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-swallow-isis-detailed-reach-01 (for IPv6 some form of compression may be beneficial). --Bruno From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Tuesday, July

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt

2020-07-28 Thread Robert Raszuk
Hello Acee, I would like to question your assessment that signalling unreachable routes is unnecessary. Imagine hierarchical network with areas. Under no failures area 1 advertises to area 0 summary LSA with 1.1.1.0/24. That block covers PE's loopbacks which within the area are /32s. Those

[Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type

2020-07-28 Thread Thomas.Graf
Dear lsr, I presented the following draft Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-04 at the spring working group at IETF 108 yesterday