Ketan –
You have the wrong idea about this draft.
The draft is NOT introducing multi-part-TLV support to IS-IS – nor is it
altering the mechanisms available to be used when sending multi-part-TLVs.
The protocol has always had the capability to support this and there are
multiple known
Hi Les,
Please check inline below for some clarifications with KT2.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:57 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
wrote:
> Ketan –
>
>
>
> Inline.
>
>
>
> *From:* Ketan Talaulikar
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 30, 2022 10:12 AM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> *Cc:* Huzhibo ; Tony Li
Hello,
I have a question ... likely to the WG chairs.
Why
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-07
does not have a YANG section ? Is there a separate document for it just
like we see a separate document for BGP-LS encoding ?
Isn't the YANG section a
Ketan –
Inline.
From: Ketan Talaulikar
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 10:12 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Huzhibo ; Tony Li ;
draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-...@ietf.org; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Handling multiple Extended IS Reachability TLVs for a link
Hi Les,
Please check inline below.
On
Hi Les,
Please check inline below.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:13 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
wrote:
> Ketan/Zhibo –
>
>
>
> It is worth reemphasizing that there are no protocol extensions used or
> required for supporting multi-part-TLVs.
>
KT> I was referring to protocol behavior and
Acee:
Agreed. All IDR and LSR chairs must agree to
the description of the process and presentation.
Or we’ll revert to the old procedure (BGP-LS TLVS
specified in IDR draft and LSR drafts).
Sue
PS – Just trying to get a jump on IETF-114 work.
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent:
We will reserve time on the agenda for this since it is important. However,
I’d hope we (the LSR chairs) would be involved as well.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Susan Hares
Date: Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 12:51 PM
To: Acee Lindem , "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Request 5-10 minutes
Acee:
A
Acee:
A presentation on the rules for included BGP-LS TLVs in
LSR drafts will not occur in IDR or LSR unless you and Chris both agree
with the slides and the content of the slides.
If you do not have time in LSR – we will provide time
In IDR WG for Q on the topic.
Based on the feedback on the
Ketan/Zhibo –
It is worth reemphasizing that there are no protocol extensions used or
required for supporting multi-part-TLVs.
This isn’t speculation – this is based on actual implementation.
As to keys, the draft already discusses the key for prefix advertisements. As
the key in that case is
Note that to the best of my knowledge, the LSR chairs have not agreed to these
slides so I must assume the agreement is amongst the IDR chairs?
Acee
From: Lsr on behalf of Susan Hares
Date: Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 12:24 PM
To: "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: [Lsr] Request 5-10 minutes
The IDR
The IDR chairs wish to request 5-7 minute time slot to present
IDR chair agreement with LSR chairs on BGP-LS TLVs in
LSR WG drafts.
Cheers, Sue Hares
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Hi Everyone:
I think it is necessary to specify the key of the TLV and the information that
needs to be carried repeatedly in this document. I am not sure that everyone
has the same understanding of the key. If different vendors have different
understandings of the key, there may be
12 matches
Mail list logo
