Hi Uma,
Please check inline below.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Uma Chunduri
Sent: 17 July 2018 08:57
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; lsr@ietf.org
Cc: spr...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Concerns with draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing
Hi Ketan,
In-line [Uma]:
--
Uma
Hi Peter,
-Original Message-
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:34 AM
To: Uma Chunduri ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
; lsr@ietf.org
Cc: spr...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Concerns with draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing
>
Hi All,
I was reviewing this draft as the Shepherd. It is a fairly simple and
straightforward bis update to RFC7810 to fix an encoding error.
There is one point that I would like the authors and WG to consider.
The draft in the appendix talks about two interpretations of the erroneous
Hi Uma,
On 17/07/18 08:56 , Uma Chunduri wrote:
Hi Ketan,
In-line [Uma]:
--
Uma C.
-Original Message-
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ket...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 7:13 AM
To: Uma Chunduri ; lsr@ietf.org
Cc: spr...@ietf.org
Subject: Concerns with
Hi Ketan,
In-line [Uma]:
--
Uma C.
-Original Message-
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ket...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 7:13 AM
To: Uma Chunduri ; lsr@ietf.org
Cc: spr...@ietf.org
Subject: Concerns with draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing
Hi Uma,
I
Hi Les,
This sounds good. I would suggest being liberal in receive (i.e. accept and
interpret the incorrect encoding) and there is no need to send that erroneous
encoding.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: 17 July 2018 13:30
To: Ketan Talaulikar
Uma -
I share the concerns expressed by Ketan and Peter.
Although I will certainly consider the additional response you seem to have
hinted at in your reply to Peter, it seems to me that Section 6 of your draft
acknowledges that there is a scaling problem - and then references what seems
to
V1 has been posted with the additional text.
Hope this clears any issues with the shepherd's report.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:07 PM
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> ; Christian
-- Forwarded message --
From: Saku Ytti
Date: Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: IPR Poll follow up on
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16
To: umac.i...@gmail.com
Cc: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org, "Horneffer,
Martin" , Edward Crabbe <
Authors of LSR MPLS ELC Signaling Drafts,
Now that we have
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12.txt on the RFC
queue waiting on a MISREF for Segment Routing MPLS, it seems we should move
forward with these drafts.
However, it seems that we should advertise an
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
Title : IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
Authors : Les Ginsberg
Stefano
FWIW - I agree with Les. We really don't want to support both interpretations
of the ambiguous encoding.
Thanks,
Acee
On 7/17/18, 5:06 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote:
Ketan -
I don't want to be overly prescriptive here.
The need for supporting backwards compatibility
Hi Acee,
We will update these two drafts so as to keep the terminologies be aligned with
the https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12.txt
Best regards,
Xiaohu
--
From:Acee Lindem (acee)
Send
Hi Uma,
I would like share more context on the concerns that I raised on this proposal
in LSR WG yesterday where we could not complete our discussion on the mike due
to time constraints.
IGPs were originally invented for topology computation and then route
programming based on the SPT
14 matches
Mail list logo
