Ketan,
Networks that deploy a single TE application and already advertising and using
attributes from top level TLVs
Will benefit from new attributes also coming in the same top level TLVs. There
is no confusion and ambiguity
from a network operators perspective and IMO this must be allowed in
Sorry, the body of the message seems to be encrypted. Just resend it.
Hi Jie,
See in-line [PSF], for resource reservation topic.
Regards,
PSF
发件人：Dongjie(Jimmy)
收件人：Christian Hopps;lsr@ietf.org;
日 期 ：2021年05月28日 11:40
主 题 ：Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency SID
Hi Jie,
See in-line [PSF], for resource reservation topic.
Regards,
PSF
原始邮件
发件人：Dongjie(Jimmy)
收件人：Christian Hopps;lsr@ietf.org;
日 期 ：2021年05月28日 11:40
主 题 ：Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency SID
Advertisement"
Hi,
I don't support
Hi Jie,
Thanks.
Again, in this document we describe local behavior per algorithm thanks to
adj-sid per algo, but not describe any resource reservatoin extensions to
flex-algo. the later can be discussed in another thread.
IMO the local behavior can be any local policies, such as local repair
Hi Acee and Chris,
I'm not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this document., and I believe
this draft is very useful and support WG adoption as co-author.
Best Regards,
Ran
原始邮件
发件人：ChristianHopps
收件人：lsr@ietf.org;
抄送人：cho...@chopps.org;
日 期 ：2021年05月27日 05:00
主 题
Hi,
I support WG adoption of this draft.
It seems clear to me that protection for any constrained topology should
use/prefer same constrains if available (with possible fallback to base if
operator wishes so).
Flexible algorithm based topologies should be no exception to this.
And as a side
Hi Robin,
On 28/05/2021 13:08, Lizhenbin wrote:
Hi All,
I do not support the adoption. I am concerned that we are in the danger of
re-inventing IGP multi-topology with Flex-Algo. I do not think it is necessary.
If we have the requirements, we can either directly use the multi-topology or
