Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-07-03 Thread Christian Hopps
;> >> From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li >> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 2:37 PM >> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> Cc: Hannes Gredler ; >> draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Code

Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-30 Thread tony . li
li-lsr-isis-area-proxy.auth...@ietf.org > <mailto:draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy.auth...@ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org > <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for > draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy > > > > Hi Les, > >

Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-29 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Tony – Inline. From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 2:37 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: Hannes Gredler ; draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-29 Thread tony . li
Hi Les, > On Jun 29, 2020, at 2:13 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > wrote: > > Tony – > > OLD: > 1)Area Proxy Router Capability - sub-TLV of Router Capability TLV > > 2)Inside Node TLV - Top level TLV > > 3)Area Proxy TLV - Top Level TLV with optional sub-TLVs: >Sub-TLV Area Proxy

Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-29 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 12:52 PM To: Hannes Gredler Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy Hi, The authors have conferred and we

Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-29 Thread tony . li
Hi, The authors have conferred and we would like to propose the following changes: - The semantics of the Inside Node TLV will be folded into the Area Proxy TLV. - The Area Proxy TLV will have its scope expanded to include pseudonodes. - No change to the Area Segment SID TLV encoding.

Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-25 Thread tony . li
Hi Hannes, Thanks for your comments. We will propose an alternate encoding. Tony > On Jun 25, 2020, at 10:47 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > I do share Les’ concerns on burning top-level 8-bit code point space at this > point. > > At this point it is not me to judge wether

Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-25 Thread Hannes Gredler
Hi Tony, I do share Les’ concerns on burning top-level 8-bit code point space at this point. At this point it is not me to judge wether CAP TLV or GENAPP TLV or something else should be a more appropriate place. Please let's have a WG discussion on this. Thanks, /hannes > On 21.06.2020, at

Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-25 Thread tony . li
Chris, Thank you for your comments. We will figure out how we would like to proceed. Thanks, Tony > On Jun 24, 2020, at 5:17 PM, Christian Hopps wrote: > > > >> On Jun 21, 2020, at 12:50 PM, tony...@tony.li wrote: >> >> >> Les, >> >>> We don’t have to resolve this now. >>> One of my

Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-24 Thread Christian Hopps
> On Jun 21, 2020, at 12:50 PM, tony...@tony.li wrote: > > > Les, > >> We don’t have to resolve this now. >> One of my motivations for sending this was related to Early Allocation of >> code points. Since you have already asked once, I am assuming that if WG >> adoption is achieved it will

Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-21 Thread tony . li
Les, > We don’t have to resolve this now. > One of my motivations for sending this was related to Early Allocation of > code points. Since you have already asked once, I am assuming that if WG > adoption is achieved it will be swiftly followed by an early allocation > request – and as one of

Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-21 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy Hi Les, Putting the Inside Node TLV aside for the moment, it would seem to me to be advantageous (in a modest way) to have all information relating to Area Proxy contained in one advertisement. Using Router Capabilities TLV would

Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-20 Thread tony . li
Hi Les, > Putting the Inside Node TLV aside for the moment, it would seem to me to be > advantageous (in a modest way) to have all information relating to Area Proxy > contained in one advertisement. Using Router Capabilities TLV would > accomplish that. I agree that the information should

Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-20 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy Hi Les, Thank you for your comments. Please see my comments inline. draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06 currently proposes the use of one new sub-TLV of Router Capabilities TLV and three new top level TLVs It should probably be noted that the Area Segment SID

Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-20 Thread tony . li
Hi Les, Thank you for your comments. Please see my comments inline. > draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06 currently proposes the use of one new > sub-TLV of Router Capabilities TLV and three new top level TLVs It should probably be noted that the Area Segment SID is somewhat orthogonal to

[Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

2020-06-20 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
(NOTE: Comments below are mine alone - wearing both my WG member hat and my Designated Expert for IS-IS Registries Hat. They do not represent support for or against the draft itself.) draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06 currently proposes the use of one new sub-TLV of Router Capabilities TLV