The LSR WG has placed draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Christian Hopps)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes/
___
Lsr mailing list
Hi Folks,
This begins a 2 week WG Adoption Call for the following draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes/
Please indicate your support or objections by January 18th, 2022.
Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR
> On Jan 3, 2022, at 11:26 PM, Aijun Wang wrote:
>
> Hi, Christian and Tony:
>
> Following your idea, the network will be filled with the large amounts of
> loop back addresses, will be one inextensible solution which has been
> discussed previously.
I stand by what I said: "... if a
Hi, Christian and Tony:
Following your idea, the network will be filled with the large amounts of loop
back addresses, will be one inextensible solution which has been discussed
previously.
And, once such loopack address failures, the nodes in other areas will also be
notified.
That is to
Happy New Year to All!
Hi Peter,
Top-pasting:
In 99,99% of cases there will be only single pulse generated when one PE
goes down. That itself is a very rare event itself.
We can easily limit the number of pulses generated on ABR to a single
digit number to cover the unlikely case of many PEs in
> On Jan 3, 2022, at 11:23 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> And I'm saying if a prefix is important enough to merit a bunch of new
> protocol extensions and state, then it's important enough to simply be left
> out of the summarization in the first place.
>
> And then people get what they
Peter Psenak writes:
Chris,
On 03/01/2022 17:18, Christian Hopps wrote:
Peter Psenak writes:
On 03/01/2022 16:21, Christian Hopps wrote:
On Nov 29, 2021, at 7:39 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
wrote:
Tony –
Let me try one example – see if it helps.
Summarization is used in the
I’d very much support applicability draft work!
Cheers,
Jeff
> On Jan 3, 2022, at 08:05, Tony Przygienda wrote:
>
>
> AFAIS this is a "operational and deployment" or "applicability" draft and not
> part of a protocol specification. But yes, such a draft would have value
> AFAIS, especially
Hi Peter,
Take SR-MPLS and RFC8667.
Take RFC7810
Take RFC5120
literally anything which uses inter-area leaking today.
Thx,
R.
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 6:18 PM Peter Psenak wrote:
> Robert,
>
> On 03/01/2022 18:04, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > > We want network to be summarized
Robert,
On 03/01/2022 18:04, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Peter,
> We want network to be summarized all times
Please - can you answer my question which was already stated at least
twice ?
How can you summarize PE addresses if outside of reachability they
advertise and leak across areas lots of
Peter,
> We want network to be summarized all times
Please - can you answer my question which was already stated at least twice
?
How can you summarize PE addresses if outside of reachability they
advertise and leak across areas lots of other important information in an
opaque to the IGP
Chris,
On 03/01/2022 17:18, Christian Hopps wrote:
Peter Psenak writes:
On 03/01/2022 16:21, Christian Hopps wrote:
On Nov 29, 2021, at 7:39 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
wrote:
Tony –
Let me try one example – see if it helps.
Summarization is used in the network.
But customer
Peter Psenak writes:
On 03/01/2022 16:21, Christian Hopps wrote:
On Nov 29, 2021, at 7:39 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
wrote:
Tony –
Let me try one example – see if it helps.
Summarization is used in the network.
But customer identifies a modest number of key nodes where it wants to
Chris, I stand accused ;-) and you're correct, flag day is a better term
for the discussions we had recently around different technologies to
flag-day the protocol ;-) ...
-- tony
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 12:55 PM Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> On a lighter note..
>
> Forklift upgrades imply a
AFAIS this is a "operational and deployment" or "applicability" draft and
not part of a protocol specification. But yes, such a draft would have
value AFAIS, especially if it deals with both abstract node & reflection in
one as available solutions. More than happy to attack that once the specs
On 03/01/2022 16:21, Christian Hopps wrote:
On Nov 29, 2021, at 7:39 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
wrote:
Tony –
Let me try one example – see if it helps.
Summarization is used in the network.
But customer identifies a modest number of key nodes where it wants to detect
loss of
> On Nov 29, 2021, at 7:39 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> Tony –
>
> Let me try one example – see if it helps.
>
> Summarization is used in the network.
> But customer identifies a modest number of key nodes where it wants to detect
> loss of reachability ASAP. Unfortunately,
Tony Przygienda writes:
One thing Les is missing here is that proxy & reflection present in
terms of deployment requirements and ultimate properties very
different engineering & operational trade-offs. Different customers
follow different philosophies here IME
So we are not strictly
On a lighter note..
Forklift upgrades imply a requirement to replace hardware i.e., "get the forklift
out to swap in/out huge heavy router chassis".. I think it's recently been somewhat
misused to refer to software upgrades. SW upgrades do not require forklifts. :)
"a Flag Day", would
19 matches
Mail list logo
