;>
>> From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
>> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 2:37 PM
>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>> Cc: Hannes Gredler ;
>> draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Code
li-lsr-isis-area-proxy.auth...@ietf.org
> <mailto:draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy.auth...@ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org
> <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for
> draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy
>
>
>
> Hi Les,
>
>
Tony –
Inline.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 2:37 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Hannes Gredler ;
draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for
draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy
Hi Les,
> On Jun 29, 2020, at 2:13 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> Tony –
>
> OLD:
> 1)Area Proxy Router Capability - sub-TLV of Router Capability TLV
>
> 2)Inside Node TLV - Top level TLV
>
> 3)Area Proxy TLV - Top Level TLV with optional sub-TLVs:
>Sub-TLV Area Proxy Sys
Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 12:52 PM
To: Hannes Gredler
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ;
draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy.auth...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for
draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy
Hi,
The authors have conferred and we
Hi,
The authors have conferred and we would like to propose the following changes:
- The semantics of the Inside Node TLV will be folded into the Area Proxy TLV.
- The Area Proxy TLV will have its scope expanded to include pseudonodes.
- No change to the Area Segment SID TLV encoding.
Commen
Hi Hannes,
Thanks for your comments. We will propose an alternate encoding.
Tony
> On Jun 25, 2020, at 10:47 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> I do share Les’ concerns on burning top-level 8-bit code point space at this
> point.
>
> At this point it is not me to judge wether CAP
Hi Tony,
I do share Les’ concerns on burning top-level 8-bit code point space at this
point.
At this point it is not me to judge wether CAP TLV or GENAPP TLV or something
else should be a more appropriate place.
Please let's have a WG discussion on this.
Thanks,
/hannes
> On 21.06.2020, at 1
Chris,
Thank you for your comments. We will figure out how we would like to proceed.
Thanks,
Tony
> On Jun 24, 2020, at 5:17 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jun 21, 2020, at 12:50 PM, tony...@tony.li wrote:
>>
>>
>> Les,
>>
>>> We don’t have to resolve this now.
>>> One of my m
> On Jun 21, 2020, at 12:50 PM, tony...@tony.li wrote:
>
>
> Les,
>
>> We don’t have to resolve this now.
>> One of my motivations for sending this was related to Early Allocation of
>> code points. Since you have already asked once, I am assuming that if WG
>> adoption is achieved it will b
Les,
> We don’t have to resolve this now.
> One of my motivations for sending this was related to Early Allocation of
> code points. Since you have already asked once, I am assuming that if WG
> adoption is achieved it will be swiftly followed by an early allocation
> request – and as one of t
Tony –
We don’t have to resolve this now.
One of my motivations for sending this was related to Early Allocation of code
points. Since you have already asked once, I am assuming that if WG adoption is
achieved it will be swiftly followed by an early allocation request – and as
one of the Design
Hi Les,
> Putting the Inside Node TLV aside for the moment, it would seem to me to be
> advantageous (in a modest way) to have all information relating to Area Proxy
> contained in one advertisement. Using Router Capabilities TLV would
> accomplish that.
I agree that the information should b
Tony –
Thanx for the quick response.
Putting the Inside Node TLV aside for the moment, it would seem to me to be
advantageous (in a modest way) to have all information relating to Area Proxy
contained in one advertisement. Using Router Capabilities TLV would accomplish
that.
Your concern about
Hi Les,
Thank you for your comments. Please see my comments inline.
> draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06 currently proposes the use of one new
> sub-TLV of Router Capabilities TLV and three new top level TLVs
It should probably be noted that the Area Segment SID is somewhat orthogonal to
th
(NOTE: Comments below are mine alone - wearing both my WG member hat and my
Designated Expert for IS-IS Registries Hat. They do not represent support for
or against the draft itself.)
draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06 currently proposes the use of one new sub-TLV
of Router Capabilities TLV and
16 matches
Mail list logo