Hi Sandy,
Thank you for the review and comments. That really helps.
Please see inline [Changwang]
Thanks,
Changwang
发件人: Lsr 代表 zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn
发送时间: 2024年3月1日 11:05
收件人: gongli...@chinamobile.com
抄送: lsr@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Lsr] Fw:New Version Notification for
Hi Jie
Some answers in-line
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:31 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
> Hi Yingzhen,
I’ve read the latest version of this document and support its adoption. It
is a useful feature in general to exclude some of the links from SPF
computation.
I also have some comments for
Hi Liyan, Changwang, Mengxiao,
Thank you for raising this topic for discussion!
IMO, getting remote interface id for some links such as L2bundle is useful in
some deployments.
I have some comments here:
1. Seems like there are nits about the LLDP format, the type should be 7 bits
and the
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-yang-05.txt is now available. It is a
work item of the Link State Routing (LSR) WG of the IETF.
Title: YANG Data Model for IS-IS SRv6
Authors: Zhibo Hu
Dan Ye
Yingzhen Qu
Xuesong Geng
Qiufang Ma
sure, on the tags given how some people start to abuse4 those in
interesting ways now ;-) I'm piping in here since I'm obviously talking
through some real OSPF designs where the issue of which ones will make it
may matter given for practical reasons we have to limit how many we carry
... ;-)
on
Tony –
In the spirit of a friendly discussion…
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Tony Przygienda
Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 10:33 AM
To: Acee Lindem
Cc: lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] bunch comments on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags
1. you can easily rectify by saying,
1. you can easily rectify by saying, if you have tags for same prefix from
multiple nodes you prefere lowest router ID or maybe "sort on router id and
then interleave" or something. depending how much of fully fledged
specification you want here
2. we miss each other. I just say this sub-TLV
Hi Liyan,
Thanks for your comments.
The main purpose of this paragraph is to declare that even with the IGP
extension in the draft and it is used for path computation, as long as the
path computation node doesn't know whether there're intermediate nodes(i.e, the
nodes between intermediate
I just updated my review but I don’t think it generated another email. This is
what I added:
Update: Even though the last review was meant to be an "early" it was only
requested right before IETF LC. I understand that the feedback provided is
therefore rather late in the process and therefore I
Reviewer: Mirja Kühlewind
Review result: On the Right Track
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and
10 matches
Mail list logo
