Re: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels

@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-xaf...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-xaf...@ietf.org> *Cc: *"lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels Hi Anton, I guess I see the use case describe

Re: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels

> > *From: *Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com> > *Date: *Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 5:29 PM > *To: *"Anton Smirnov (asmirnov)" <asmir...@cisco.com>, > "draft-ietf-ospf-xaf...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-osp

Re: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels

f...@ietf.org> *Cc: *"lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels Hi Anton, I guess I see the use case described below as only one of the potential use cases for the X-AF tunnels. It seems that path c

Re: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels

-xaf...@ietf.org> Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels Hi Anton, I guess I see the use case described below as only one of the potential use cases for the X-AF tunnels. It seems that path computa

Re: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels

Hi Acee, > I guess I see the use case described below as only one of the potential > use cases for the X-AF tunnels. Correct. At the very minimum technique is symmetric, i.e. can equally be applied to compute OSPFv2/IPv4 routes over TE tunnels with IPv6 tailend where TE LSAs were

Re: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels

Hi Acee, to refresh the draft I published a new revision with changes we agreed upon (like dropping 'MPLS' from title) and minor editorial changes (change group to LSR and the like). I didn't add text to the backward compatibility section that you found confusing. Please give me know

Re: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels

Hi Anton, On 4/6/18, 7:33 AM, "Anton Smirnov (asmirnov)" wrote: Hi Acee, my answers below (I didn't vet them with other authors, so they may express different opinions). > 1. Have you considered a shorter name for the RFC? For example: “OSPF

Re: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels

Hi Acee, my answers below (I didn't vet them with other authors, so they may express different opinions). > 1. Have you considered a shorter name for the RFC? For example: “OSPF > Cross Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels”? Your proposed variant drops two pieces: "Routing