Stewart, thanks for your review. Naiming, thanks for your responses. I have
entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Oct 21, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Naiming Shen (naiming) wrote:
>
>
> Hi Stewart,
>
> Thanks for detailed review and comments, please see some
> replies inline. the modified
Why not directly use the BGP over SR model just like the BGP over LDP model?
Best regards,
Xiaohu
--
From:stephane.litkowski
Send Time:2018年11月20日(星期二) 15:20
To:徐小虎(义先) ; Lsr ;
lsr@ietf.org
Cc:spr...@ietf.org
Subject:Re:
If I understood it correctly, draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-00 is
an OSPF counterpart of RFC7794 from the perspective of correlation of prefixes
and their originator in the inter-area scenario. As such, these two drafts are
useful for the usage of ELC in the inter-area scenario.
As
We can’t for some internal design/security reasons.
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ???(??)
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 09:10
To: spring; Lsr; lsr@ietf.org
Cc: spr...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [spring] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc & draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc
Why not
As mentioned, you could not be aware of all the constraints that we have and
BGP 3107 is not an option.
Note that this kind of redistribution can even happen within a single AS. We
had some OSPF domain prefixes leaked in the ISIS L2 in the past in a single AS.
Nothing prevents this design to
Hi Alvaro,
done.
Have some issues posting the new ospfv2 draft, so requested manual posting.
thanks,
Peter
On 16/11/18 22:40 , Alvaro Retana wrote:
[Took the ops-dir and the ietf@ietf lists off.]
Hi!
Joe makes a really good point below about the TLV types and RFC7770. It
looks like we all
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 : OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing
Authors : Peter Psenak
Stefano Previdi
