I agree your BGP-LS only deployment in the MSD document were not well defined.
Starting a new set of work to define BGP-LS use in BGP-only is important. If
this document start the process to refine how BGP-only works, this will help
defined this usage. I stand by the
As you know, part of the chair’s duty is to determine if the authors have
missed mentioning something in their draft proposal. My questions were about
the BGP-only features since it seemed obvious to me after working with the
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps as a shepherd. BGP has had
Does the following responses satisfy your concerns If I understand your
From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 4:04 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura
Cc: lsr ; Aijun Wang ; Acee Lindem
Thanks for your review and comments. Please see inline [Yali].
Please feel free let us know your thoughts.
From: chenhu...@chinatelecom.cn [mailto:chenhu...@chinatelecom.cn]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 10:00 AM
To: wangyali ; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version for
Hello WG and Authors,
I have read the draft.
It is a good idea to use IGP extension to notification the HBH ablility.
Commments as follow:
1. How to enable the IGP extensions for HBH？
2. Does the IGP use the HBH option as criterion to genernate a new topology?
Juniper Business Use Only
> -Original Message-
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2020 6:52 PM
> To: Shraddha Hegde ; Peter Psenak
> ; Ron Bonica ; Parag Kaneriya
> ; Rajesh M ; William Britto A J
> Subject: New Version Notification for
Thanks for clarification Robert, makes sense.
On Nov 15, 2020, 12:03 PM -0800, Robert Raszuk , wrote:
> I was not bringing RIFT's negative routies example as something inherently
> negative. I was just pointing it out to illustrate that today's data plane
> lookup does
I was not bringing RIFT's negative routies example as something inherently
negative. I was just pointing it out to illustrate that today's data plane
lookup does not really support "if does not match" checks.
So if you intend to use unreachable prefixes in data plane as result you
Robert & Acee
I have been working with Aijun to help clean up the verbiage in the draft
which after IETF 109 will plan to do an update based on feedback.
I will be presenting this draft as well as the passive interface draft
It has been challenging trying to graphically depict
As RIFT chair - I’d like to respond to Robert’ comment - the example is rather
unfortunate, in RIFT disaggregation is conditional and well contained within
its context, it doesn’t affect overall scalability.
> On Nov 15, 2020, at 08:44, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Aijun,
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 : ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System
(AS) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
I would in fact only propose that the presented mechanism is narrowed down
to invalidate BGP (service) routes - in fact their next hops.
The reason being that the moment you make the solution generic, moreover
the moment you want it to be used in RIB and data plane I am afraid you are
I agree with you that IGP still has work to do. I think we can leave the work
to LSR to complete it, which does not affect the current BGP work.
发件人: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2020年11月15日 1:29
收件人: Huzhibo ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> On Nov 15, 2020, at 18:49, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Aijun,
> As I think what you are proposing overall is useful let me in turn comment on
> some of your statements ...
>>> [WAJ] It is common, for example, ISIS level1-2 router will announce
Sorry, I missed this (got caught on a filter cos it was a bit spammed to a lot
of lists :-).
> I have noticed that after reviewing many drafts across many WGs it seems in
> industry that the lines seem to be blurred between a PCE controller, ODL or
> Openflow SDN
As I think what you are proposing overall is useful let me in turn comment
on some of your statements ...
[WAJ] It is common, for example, ISIS level1-2 router will announce the
>> default route to the level 1 area. And, also in the OSPF totally stubby
Well let's just
Mail list logo