So full speed ahead and ignoring the views expressed in the LSR WG? This is not
a recipe for success if you are basing your implementation on using LSR
protocols.
Thanks,
Chris.
[As WG member]
> On Jul 19, 2020, at 9:30 PM, qinfengwei wrote:
>
> Hi,
> IFIT Capability Advertisement accur
04:34:51
主 题：Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-wang-lsr-igp-extensions-ifit-00.txt
Robin/Yali –
The argument here is circular.
You are saying “if the IGPs advertised ifit information/capability then it
would be used”.
Sure.
But the question that was discussed three back was whether
.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
主题: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-wang-lsr-igp-extensions-ifit-00.txt
Dear Les,
Many thanks for your quick feedback. We are very appreciate all of your
insightful comments and advices. ☺
Please let me clarify the one of requirements is that the in
Dear Les,
Many thanks for your quick feedback. We are very appreciate all of your
insightful comments and advices. ☺
Please let me clarify the one of requirements is that the ingress node cannot
insert IFIT instruction for packets going into a path unless the egress node
signals its capability
Yali -
While it is kind of you to acknowledge many of us for our comments, in many
cases (myself included) what we told you is that this does not belong in the
IGPs.
Putting out a new draft which continues to push for advertising ifit in IGPs
(even if in different TLVs) does not indicate tha
