Hi Robert,
The draft tries to propose a lightweight isolated flooding solution capering
the existing IGP multi-instance solutions. As the suggestion proposed by Acee,
it should take more work. Now it focuses on ISIS firstly. Then OSPF may be
taken into account depending on the research result
Hi Linda
Comments in-line
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:46 PM Linda Dunbar
wrote:
> Gyan,
>
>
>
> To a router, having multiple servers with the same (ANYCAST) address
> attached to different egress routers (A-ER) is same as having multiple
> paths to reach the (ANYCAST) address.
>
>
>
> You are
Gyan,
To a router, having multiple servers with the same (ANYCAST) address attached
to different egress routers (A-ER) is same as having multiple paths to reach
the (ANYCAST) address.
You are absolutely correct that there are many tools to influence the path
section, such as the routing
Acee,
Thank you very much for your comments.
Answers are inserted below.
Linda
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 2:12 PM
To: draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-...@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Comments on draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext-03
Speaking as WG
Folks -
This revision addresses comments from Dhruv, Alvaro, Donald, and Acee.
Thanx to all for their careful review.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:57 AM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
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 : IS-IS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous
System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
Authors :
same thing. if you want go multiple hops ZeroMQ you need forwarding
already. And if you go one hop it really doesn't matter, it's just FOSE
(flooding over something else ;-)
-- tony
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 12:52 PM Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > You think Kafka here?
>
> Nope ... I meant ZeroMQ
> You think Kafka here?
Nope ... I meant ZeroMQ message bus as underlaying pub-sub transport for
service related info.
Thx,
R.,
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:41 AM Tony Przygienda
wrote:
> ? Last time I looked @ it (and it's been a while) Open-R had nothing of
> that sort, it was basically KV
? Last time I looked @ it (and it's been a while) Open-R had nothing of
that sort, it was basically KV playing LSDB (innovative and clever in
itself). You think Kafka here? Which in turn needs underlying IGP however
and is nothing but BGP problems in new clothes having looked @ their
internal
Robert,
On 10/03/2021 11:29, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Peter,
> But suddenly the DOWN event distribution is considered
> problematic. Not sure I follow.
In routing and IP reachability we use p2mp distribution and flooding as
it is required to provide any to any connectivity.
Such spray model
Peter,
> But suddenly the DOWN event distribution is considered
> problematic. Not sure I follow.
In routing and IP reachability we use p2mp distribution and flooding as it
is required to provide any to any connectivity.
Such spray model no longer fits services where not every endpoint
Hi, Authors:
I think other use case, such as 3.2 and 3.3 can also be solved by other means.
Following the direction of using different routing instances to transfer such
information is not one feasible way.
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org On
Robert,
On 09/03/2021 19:30, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi Peter,
> Example 1:
>
> If session to PE1 goes down, withdraw all RDs received from such PE.
still dependent on RDs and BGP specific.
To me this does sound like a feature ... to you I think it was rather
pejorative.
13 matches
Mail list logo
