;
> Take questions at LSR or IDR.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Sue Hares
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr *On Behalf Of * Susan Hares
> *Sent:* Friday, June 24, 2022 9:29 AM
> *To:* Tony Przygienda ; Ketan Talaulikar <
> ketant.i...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Jordan Head ; i...@ietf.org; lsr
&
and
Take questions at LSR or IDR.
Cheers, Sue Hares
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 9:29 AM
To: Tony Przygienda ; Ketan Talaulikar
Cc: Jordan Head ; i...@ietf.org; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call
(6/6 to 6/20)
Tony P
ok, we in sync then ...
thanks
-- tony
On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 8:07 AM Ketan Talaulikar
wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> Just allowing sub-TLVs for the BGP-LS ISIS Flood Reflection TLV will
> address my concerns for this draft. For the rest, new TLVs/sub-TLVs can be
> introduced on a need basis down the
Hi Tony,
Just allowing sub-TLVs for the BGP-LS ISIS Flood Reflection TLV will
address my concerns for this draft. For the rest, new TLVs/sub-TLVs can be
introduced on a need basis down the line.
Thanks,
Ketan
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 11:43 PM Tony Przygienda
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 6:43 PM Ketan Talaulikar
wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> Please check inline below.
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 9:41 PM Tony Przygienda
> wrote:
>
>> hey Ketan, since as you know ;-) BGP-LS is not really IGP 1:1 translation
>> we try to put into BGP-LS here only the stuff that is
Hi Tony,
Please check inline below.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 9:41 PM Tony Przygienda wrote:
> hey Ketan, since as you know ;-) BGP-LS is not really IGP 1:1 translation
> we try to put into BGP-LS here only the stuff that is strictly needed for
> topology discovery and understanding for advanced
Tony P, Ketan and IDR WG:
Thank you for input on this draft.
I am closing the WG adoption call for this draft.
The IDR Chairs will discuss the results of this consensus call, and
Announce the results by July 8th.
Cheers,
Sue Hares
From: Tony Przygienda
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 12:11 PM
hey Ketan, since as you know ;-) BGP-LS is not really IGP 1:1 translation
we try to put into BGP-LS here only the stuff that is strictly needed for
topology discovery and understanding for advanced computation and nothing
else. And hence, since the 1:1 TLV correspondence is nowhere to be seen by
Hi Tony,
I may not be the best judge, for this feature, of which of the ISIS sub-TLV
need to get into BGP-LS and which do not. In my limited understanding of
the feature and its deployment, the other 3 sub-TLVs would be
equally useful to get into BGP-LS. Isn't the Flood Reflection Adjacency
