.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Aijun Wang
Sent: 10 April 2018 13:46
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas' ; lsr@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: 答复: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV"
between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing
Hi, Ketan:
ng
抄送: Jeffrey Haas; lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>;
i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>
主题: Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV"
between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing
< including IDR WG where BGP-LS work is being done >
Hi
April 03, 2018 12:35 AM
> To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> ; Aijun Wang
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV"
> between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing
>
> On 0
nt: 04 April 2018 07:50
To: 'stefano previdi' ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Acee Lindem
(acee)
Subject: 答复: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV"
between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing
Hi,
(ketant)"
>> *Date: *Monday, April 2, 2018 at 7:36 AM
>> *To: *Aijun Wang
>> *Cc: *"lsr@ietf.org"
>> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID
>> Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing
>>
etant)"
*Date: *Monday, April 2, 2018 at 7:36 AM
*To: *Aijun Wang
*Cc: *"lsr@ietf.org"
*Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID
Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing
Hi Aijun,
I understand what you are refer
nsistency you are referring to.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of
Aijun Wang
Sent: 02 April 2018 14:23
To: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV"
between OSPF and IS
as possible.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Aijun Wang
Sent: 02 April 2018 16:52
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV"
between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing
Hi, Ketan:
There is one two-bytes
to.
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
> Sent: 02 April 2018 14:23
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV"
> between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing
>
> Hi
Behalf Of Aijun Wang
Sent: 02 April 2018 14:23
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV"
between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing
Hi, All:
We found there were some inconsistences for the definition of "Adjacency
Segment
Hi, All:
We found there were some inconsistences for the definition of "Adjacency
Segment Identifier" between OSPF and ISIS extension for segment routing,
please see the link below for comparison.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-15#se
ction-2.2.1
https:/
Hi, All:
We found there were some inconsistence for the definition of "Adjacency
Segment Identifier" between OSPF and ISIS extension for segment routing,
please see the link below for comparison.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-15#se
ction-2.2.1
https://
12 matches
Mail list logo
