Thanks Much Yingzhen! I will text Tony P 15 minutes before the start of each
meeting 😉
Given that the only routing WGs that are meeting next week are LSR and IDR, I
hope that many of you will have time to read the drafts.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Yingzhen Qu
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 11:45 P
Hello, folks,
we have submitted a new draft of
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-00 .
It is about Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual
Transport Network. Enhanced VPN (VPN+) as defined in I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn
aims to provide enhanced
This drafts starts by asserting that there are limitations on what can
be done with the existing technology. As the description is quite
vague, I can not be certain. But I do not know of any difficulty in
providing the described capabilities with current technology, without
introducing a new,
Hi Chongfeng,
what exactly is being standardized in this draft? I don't see anything.
thanks,
Peter
On 25/03/2020 14:44, xie...@chinatelecom.cn wrote:
Hello, folks,
we have submitted a new draft of
 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-00 .
It is about Using IS-IS Mu
Chris,
please see inline:
On 23/03/2020 17:39, Chris Bowers wrote:
Peter,
The proposed SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV has several problems.
1) As discussed in item#3 below, it is not clear that flooding LB
Length, LN Length, Fun. Length, and Arg. Length to all ISIS speakers is
really the r
Hi Tony,
The agenda has been updated with your presentation:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2020-lsr-01/materials/agenda-interim-2020-lsr-01-lsr-01.html
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 5:58 PM Tony Przygienda wrote:
> any chance people can post invite.ics I cn import in
While I never concluded the discussion (until now), but there is very little
support for the requirement from operators. The flooding reflector draft did
have the most support with support from one operator who was not a co-author on
the draft. We could move these presentations to the second ses
yepp, most appreciated ... I will judiciously put a reject filter on
anything coming from Acee or may automatically script text'ing him back if
such a message arrives 18 hours later precisely (which should hit his deep
sleep timezone nicely) ...
if you schedule us into 2nd session that's humanly p
Ack.
well, problem real, problem being solved, I would prefer WG getting ahead
of the problem while it is being solved rather than standardizing whatever
ends up already deployed in retrospective :-} We'll gladly present a draft
update in 2nd session (if Chris doesn't chime in, count me in pls)
It looks like your presentation is currently slated for 7am PT (FWIW this is
10pm Japan/Korea time). Is that too early?
Thanks,
Chris.
> On Mar 25, 2020, at 5:56 PM, Tony Przygienda wrote:
>
> yepp, most appreciated ... I will judiciously put a reject filter on anything
> coming from Acee or
Chris, I suffered through harsher things for IGPs in my life ;-) Seriously,
thanks, 7AM is fine ...
Acee, send me a nastygram @ 6.30AM then ;-)
--- tony
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:38 PM Christian Hopps wrote:
> It looks like your presentation is currently slated for 7am PT (FWIW this
> is 10pm
Hi, Joel,
The statement is that pure overlay VPNs cannot meet the requirement of some new
services, and it would require integration between the underlay and the overlay
networks.
As mentioned in this document, there is existing technology in the underlay to
support enhanced VPNs , such as usin
Hi Peter,
As described in the abstract, the purpose of this draft is to define a
simplified control plane mechanism to build SR based Virtual Transport Network
(VTN), it is based on the combination of IS-IS Multi-Topology with other IS-IS
extensions, e.g. the extensions for TE, SR and L2 bundl
13 matches
Mail list logo
