ot; - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06
>
>
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
>
>
> Please check inline below with KT3.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:28 PM wrote:
>
> Hi Ketan,
>
>
>
> Please see inline [Bruno2]
>
>
>
> *From:* Ke
; draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property
advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06
Hi Acee and WG,
> Those questioning the flag should have been paying attention
> when RFC 9513 and RFC
Hi Acee,
I support the adoption of this draft.
Because similar mechanisms have been added to ISIS (RFC9352) and OSPFv3
(RFC9513).
Therefore, similar extensions and supplements are also needed for OSPF.
Thanks,
Yarong
___
Lsr mailing list
Hi Acee and WG,
> Those questioning the flag should have been paying attention
> when RFC 9513 and RFC 9352 were being discussed.
No.
#1 Those two RFCs are about segment routing
extensions. draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag is not.
#2 In those two RFCs it is very clear that anycast flag reflects
Speaking as WG member:
I support working group adoption.
It would be good to add:
1. In the introduction, informational references to OSPFv3 [RFC9513] and
ISIS [9352].
2. The example use cases for the prefix Anycast flag we've been discussing.
Note that we already have this flag for
ction (and abstract) states:
>
> " Both SR-MPLS prefix-SID and IPv4 prefix may be configured as anycast
> and as such the same value can be advertised by multiple routers."
>
> But there is no further discussion of prefix-SID in the draft.
> I think mention of the prefix
r-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of
> Acee Lindem
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 11:43 AM
> To: lsr mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
> Cc:
> draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org>
> Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "
Cc: draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast
> Property
> > advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06
> >
> >
> > This starts the Working Group adoption call for
> dra
I support WG adoption.
However before adoption I agree with what has already been mentioned on ML
the use case to advertise the AC flag and not just for parity with SRv6 IGP
extension that already covers Anycast via AC flag in ISIS extension RFC
9352 and OSPFv3 extension RFC 9513. Since this
Acee Lindem ; lsr ;
> draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org; Dongjie (Jimmy) ;
> Tony Przygienda
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast
> Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06
>
>
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
>
&
-f...@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast
> Property
> > advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06
> >
> >
> > This starts the Working Group adoption call for
> draft-chen-lsr-anyc
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 11:43 AM
> To: lsr
> Cc: draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property
> advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06
>
>
> This starts the Working G
mailto:draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org>;
Dongjie (Jimmy) mailto:jie.d...@huawei.com>>; Tony
Przygienda mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property
advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-fla
do so
>>>>> may
>>>>> result in traffic being dropped or misrouted.”
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So for SRv6 the burden is on the originator, and we felt the need to
>>>>> define an anycast flag.
>>>> Please see inline [Bruno]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Ketan Talaulikar
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:18 PM
>>>> *To:* DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET
>>>> *Cc:* Acee Lindem ; lsr ;
>>>&
ease see inline [Bruno]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Ketan Talaulikar
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:18 PM
>>> *To:* DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET
>>> *Cc:* Acee Lindem ; lsr ;
>>> draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.o
AENE Bruno INNOV/NET
>> *Cc:* Acee Lindem ; lsr ;
>> draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org; Dongjie (Jimmy) <
>> jie.d...@huawei.com>; Tony Przygienda
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast
>> Property advertisement for
PM
> *To:* DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET
> *Cc:* Acee Lindem ; lsr ;
> draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org; Dongjie (Jimmy) ;
> Tony Przygienda
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast
> Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-an
all implementations
> on the receiver side)
>
>
>
>
>
> So please specify the semantic.
>
> This may eventually lead to further discussion (e.g., on SR-MPLS)
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> --Bruno
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr *On Behalf Of *Tony Przygienda
.@ietf.org<mailto:draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property
advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06
I think the draft is somewhat superfluous and worse, can generate completely
unclear
line conversations about
that. However, IMHO, that is beyond the scope of this document and this
thread.
Thanks,
Ketan
>
>
> Thank you
>
> --Bruno
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr *On Behalf Of *Tony Przygienda
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 20, 2024 5:44 PM
> *To:* Acee Linde
the receiving IGP nodes?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jie
> >
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of
> > Acee Lindem
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:43 AM
> > To: lsr mailto:lsr@iet
Best regards,
> > Jie
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee
Lindem
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:43 AM
> > To: lsr
> > Cc: draft-chen-lsr-an
y defined flag would be used by the receiving IGP nodes?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jie
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:43 AM
> > To: lsr
> > Cc: draft-chen-lsr-any
...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property
advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06
Hi Acee/Jie,
The most common users of the anycast property of a prefix are external
controllers/PCE that perform path computation
;>> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:16 PM Acee Lindem
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi Jie,
>>> >
>>> > I asked this when the flag was added to IS-IS and then to OSPFv3. I
>>> agree it would be good to know why knowing a prefix is an Anycast address
&
> > Best regards,
> > Jie
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:43 AM
> > To: lsr
> > Cc: draft-chen-lsr-anycast-
when the whole point is that you use the closest one (or some
>> other criteria).
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Acee
>> >
>> > > On Mar 20, 2024, at 9:09 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy)
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi authors,
>> > >
<mailto:jie.d...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi authors,
>> > >
>> > > I just read this document. Maybe I didn't follow the previous
>> > > discussion, but it seems in the current version it does not describe how
>&
e I didn't follow the previous
> discussion, but it seems in the current version it does not describe how
> this newly defined flag would be used by the receiving IGP nodes?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jie
> > >
> > > -----Orig
sr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:43 AM
> > To: lsr
> > Cc: draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property
> > advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-
t; To: lsr
> > Cc: draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast
> Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06
> >
> >
> > This starts the Working Group adoption call f
rds,
> Jie
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:43 AM
> To: lsr
> Cc: draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property
> advertise
Lindem
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:43 AM
To: lsr
Cc: draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f...@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property
advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06
This starts the Working Group adoption call for draft-chen-l
Hi AceeWG,I support the adoption of this draft. Thanks.Best
regards,Zhenlin Tantanzl1@chinatelecom.cnChina Telecom Research Institute
--Original--
From:
t-chen-lsr-anycast-flag
Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property
advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06
This starts the Working Group adoption call for draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag.
This is a simple OSPFv2 maintenance draft adding an A
Hi Acee,
I support the publication of this draft. It’s a useful extension for OSPFv2.
Thanks,
Zehua Hu
China Telecom
From: Acee Lindem
Date: 2024-03-20 02:43
To: lsr
CC: draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag
Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property
advertis
for "Updates to Anycast Property
advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06
This starts the Working Group adoption call for draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag.
This is a simple OSPFv2 maintenance draft adding an Anycast flag for IPv4
prefixes to align with IS-IS and OSPFv3.
P
This starts the Working Group adoption call for draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag.
This is a simple OSPFv2 maintenance draft adding an Anycast flag for IPv4
prefixes to align with IS-IS and OSPFv3.
Please send your support or objection to this list before April 6th, 2024.
Thanks,
Acee
39 matches
Mail list logo
