I support WG adoption as this draft helps maintain feature parity as close
as possible between OSPF and ISIS.
Great job on the continuing effort to maintaining IGP feature parity by WG
and chairs.
This is very important for operators.
ISIS MI RFC 8202
OSPFv3 AF RFC 5838
ISIS Advertise
Thanks Tony for the valuable feedback!!
Gyan
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 2:59 AM Tony Przygienda wrote:
> I never saw more than 3-4 MT "slices" deployed, Gyan. Operational
> complexity basically. Usual Ks or 10Ks prefixes in main instance and not
> more than maybe 1K in others.
>
> So practically
Support its adoption.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
From: Lsr on behalf of Christian Hopps
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 2021 4:39 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Cc: lsr-...@ietf.org ; cho...@chopps.org ;
draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-insta...@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] WG adoption call
Support.
Happy to see LSR thinking ahead.
Wish IDR would do the same in respect to minimise the impact of non routing
stuff with "Transport Instance BGP" draft I proposed 10+ years back ... :(
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raszuk-ti-bgp-01
Best,
R.
On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 11:19 PM Les
Yes/support
Regards,
Jeff
> On May 2, 2021, at 01:47, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance/
>
> Please indicate your support or objection by May 16th, 2021.
