Peter,
Thanks for the conclusion on adding L-bit clarification in the
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo.
Snip to open comments.
> Note that earlier versions of this document did not mandate use of
> ASLA TLVs and hence may not inter-operate with early implementations that use
> legacy
Hi Tony,
Thanks for your reply.
All good to me.
Thanks,
--Bruno
From: Tony Li [mailto:tony1ath...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2020 2:18 AM
To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03.txt
Hi Aijun,
> *[WAJ] If necessary, we can advertise the MAX_T_PUA(configurable time for
> the hold of PUA information on the nodes) among the area.*
>
> *If one node connect to the network after the disappearance of the PUA
> destination, there will be no services can be established/run on these
>
Hi Aijun,
> the BGP next-hop is reachable
Nope you missed the crux of the message.
The next hop will be unreachable in the *source area/level. *That would be
where the BGP service route withdraw or aggregate withdraw would originate
at. Same as PUA.
Best,
Robert.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 11:31
Hi Tony,
Thanks for your reply.
At this point, area proxy spec is clear with regards to nominal behavior. So
indeed we are discussing error handling / transitions. (and thank you for
considering those cases, much appreciated).
From memory, my understanding is the area proxy nominal behaviour
Hi, Robert:
For BGP next-hop tracking, it will help when the BGP next-hop is unreachable.
But in our situation, the BGP next-hop is reachable, but should pass another
ABR.
Then, in such situation, the mechanism of BGP next-hop tracking will not take
effect?
And thanks for your draft
Hi Bruno,
> At this point, area proxy spec is clear with regards to nominal behavior. So
> indeed we are discussing error handling / transitions. (and thank you for
> considering those cases, much appreciated).
>
> From memory, my understanding is the area proxy nominal behaviour requires:
Hi Peter,
> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 9:55 AM
>
> Hi Shraddha,
>
> On 03/09/2020 05:39, Shraddha Hegde wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > In order to make the document clearer on this point, I would like the text
> below to be
