Hi Aijun,
thank you for posting the crucial questions. I think that we need to
consider a construct analogous to the Ethernet OAM's Maintenance
Association. We may refer to it, for now, as EVPN MA and it includes all
PEs that belong to a given EVPN. If that is the case, the news of a PE
being
Hi, Robert and Greg:
The reason that we select the IGP for advertising such “important bad news” is
that the potential receivers located in the same IGP as ABR. The nodes within
the IGP are all potential receiver for such news, then it is efficient to
advertise them via IGP.
Using other OAM
Gyan,
Everyone agrees that indicating down events is a good thing. Please observe
that the discussion is about how to do it, not if to do it.
There is nothing similar in mechanics of local protection (RFC8679) and
ingress protection (this discussion). Just like local repair works very
Hi, Peter:
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Jan 5, 2022, at 23:57, Peter Psenak
> wrote:
>
> Aijun,
>
>> On 05/01/2022 16:20, Aijun Wang wrote:
>> [WAJ] The above remote information must be configured manually on the local
>> device. It is paired by manual. Thinking there are many links among
Hi Robert
The goal of the draft is providing egress protection when summarization is
used similar to RFC 8679 Egress protection framework, but without the
complexities.
An IGP RIB within a domain is made up on connected interfaces and
loopbacks. Of the two types, the critical prefix to be
I'm not aware of any IPR.
Thanks,
Acee
On 1/4/22, 2:04 AM, "Christian Hopps" wrote:
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
Hi Aijun,
thank you for pointing that out. I agree that in some deployment scenarios,
only a subset of PEs will be required to be monitored by an ABR. But, as I
look at the problem, the general use case should be the worst case
scenario, i.e., all PEs in the area being monitored.
Just to be
Aijun,
On 05/01/2022 16:20, Aijun Wang wrote:
[WAJ] The above remote information must be configured manually on the local
device. It is paired by manual. Thinking there are many links among the ASBRs,
would you like to configure them manually for every remote ends on each link?
We are
Hi, Peter:
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Jan 5, 2022, at 21:54, Peter Psenak
> wrote:
>
> Hi Aijun,
>
> please see inline (##PP):
>
>> On 05/01/2022 13:01, Aijun Wang wrote:
>> Hi, Peter:
>> Thanks for your comments.
>> Please see replies inline.
>> Aijun Wang
>> China Telecom
On Jan
Hi Aijun,
please see inline (##PP):
On 05/01/2022 13:01, Aijun Wang wrote:
Hi, Peter:
Thanks for your comments.
Please see replies inline.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
On Jan 5, 2022, at 18:45, Peter Psenak
wrote:
Hi,
I'm afraid the draft has some serious issues that would need to be
> same happens without a pulse today without a summarization
We have established that this discussion is about this scenario:
" it's applicable in cases where summarization is used."
and in such cases under some scenarios PULSES can actually make things
worse.
The goal is (or should be) not to
Robert,
On 05/01/2022 12:57, Robert Raszuk wrote:
if the router supports NSR or NSF such event will be invisible to other
routers, including ABR. Without these mechanisms the neighboring
routers
would tear down the adjacency anyway.
So are you going to add to the draft special
Hi, Peter:
Thanks for your comments.
Please see replies inline.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Jan 5, 2022, at 18:45, Peter Psenak
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm afraid the draft has some serious issues that would need to be addressed
> if it is to become a WG document.
>
> Below comments use
>
> if the router supports NSR or NSF such event will be invisible to other
> routers, including ABR. Without these mechanisms the neighboring routers
> would tear down the adjacency anyway.
>
So are you going to add to the draft special handling in this case ?
There is difference between losing
Robert,
On 05/01/2022 12:27, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Peter,
Two other points ..
#1 - Imagine PE is performing control plane restart or ISSU. How ABR
will be able to detect this and instead of keep the potential disruption
local to the area ? Note that data plane of the PE is working all the
Peter,
Two other points ..
#1 - Imagine PE is performing control plane restart or ISSU. How ABR will
be able to detect this and instead of keep the potential disruption local
to the area ? Note that data plane of the PE is working all the time just
fine.
#2 - The PULSE expiration timer may be
Peter,
Two other points ..
#1 - Imagine PE
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Hi,
I'm afraid the draft has some serious issues that would need to be
addressed if it is to become a WG document.
Below comments use ISIS as an example, but most of it applies to OSPF as
well.
1. The draft says:
"ISIS[RFC5316] defines the Inter-AS Reachability TLV to carry the TE
Robert,
On 04/01/2022 20:05, Robert Raszuk wrote:
no. It's a limit not a delay.
That is directly contradicting the message from Les stating that this is
going to be a rate limit not cut out.
*/"[LES2:] It is reasonable to limit the rate of pulses sent. "/*
If too many edge nodes
Hi, WG:
This draft provides a way to advertise the stub link and their associated
attributes.
I support its adoption as a co-author.
I am not aware of any IPR that related to this draft.
Best Regards
Zhibo hu
-Original Message-
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
20 matches
Mail list logo
