Hi Chris,
Dropping the draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming authors since we are
now back to discussing the ISIS extensions.
Please check inline below.
From: Chris Bowers
Sent: 05 March 2020 21:53
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; lsr@ietf.org; SPRING WG List
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) writes:
[KT] The behaviors currently listed in the draft do not have an argument nor is
the use of B and N required for them. We cannot preclude a future use-case or
extension where such behaviors introduced are also applicable to ISIS. So IMHO
ruling such aspects
Hi Chris,
I've been following that thread 😊
IMHO it would depend on the nature of extension and seems not something that I
would speculate about.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
Sent: 12 March 2020 17:04
To: spr...@ietf.org
Cc: Chris Bowers ; ls
Peter,
I think that the SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV should be removed from
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions. I think that we should leave the
ability to include sub-sub-TLVs in the SRv6 End SID Sub-TLV, End.X SID
Sub-TLV, and LAN End.X SID Sub-TLV in the encodings for those sub-TLVs.
I don
Hi Chris,
I am repeating the use-case described previously:
The IGP drafts covers the advertisement of the B and N parts of the locally
configured locator on the node via IGPs. On the receiver side, the IGP may not
really do much with this information, however it enables propagation of this
inf
