Re: [OSPF] Fwd: Last Call: (Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS) to Proposed Standard

Hi Les, From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" > Date: Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 4:35 PM To: Acee Lindem >, Alia Atlas >, OSPF WG List >,

Re: [OSPF] Fwd: Last Call: (Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS) to Proposed Standard

Acee – Did you look at the Appendix – which has ASCII art for some example encodings? Les From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 11:58 AM To: Alia Atlas; OSPF List; rt...@ietf.org; idr@ietf. org Subject: Re: [OSPF] Fwd: Last

Re: [OSPF] Fwd: Last Call: (Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS) to Proposed Standard

Hi Alia, I have reviewed the document and had several conversations with the authors. I believe the encodings are adaptable to the OSPF Segment Routing extensions. Of course, we’ll use a different identifier than System ID (Used to identify LAN-Adj-SID neighors). One comment I have is that it

Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"

Hi Tony, On 11/05/17 18:37 , prz wrote: So, overall I think we agree on scope of the problem that needs to be addressed so we get a coherent set of standards out so would you agree to make this a WG document? Hey Peter, yes, given the backward compat section addresses all the issues

Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-13.txt

Hi Shraddha, On 11/05/17 11:30 , Shraddha Hegde wrote: Peter, Inter-area/external prefixes with A-flag re-set is the only scenario I can think of where SRMS SIDs should not do PHP. Is there any other case? - Intra-area route, where the downstream neighbor is not the originator or the prefix

Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-13.txt

Peter, Inter-area/external prefixes with A-flag re-set is the only scenario I can think of where SRMS SIDs should not do PHP. Is there any other case? > "For all other cases, when SID is coming from SRMS, PHM MUST not be done" I suggest the text to be more specific to the cases since we do not

Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-13.txt

Hi Shraddha please see inline: On 11/05/17 08:49 , Shraddha Hegde wrote: Peter, It is clearly specified that ABR originating prefixes from other areas should have NP Bit set. "The NP-Flag (No-PHP) MUST be set for Prefix-SIDs allocated to inter- area prefixes that are originated by the

Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"

Hi Tony, please see inline: On 10/05/17 17:57 , prz wrote: On Tue, 09 May 2017 12:54:08 +0200, Peter Psenak wrote: Hi Tony, let me try to clarify. 1. This draft does not change, nor does it conflict with RFC3630 in any way. Peter, my bad, I got confused forgetting that

Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-13.txt

Hi Shradda, really small nit below: On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 06:49:57AM +, Shraddha Hegde wrote: > [...] > Suggest to add below text. > > "The Prefix is inter-area type and downstream neighbor is an ABR, ^^^ If the > which is advertising prefix

Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-13.txt

Peter, It is clearly specified that ABR originating prefixes from other areas should have NP Bit set. "The NP-Flag (No-PHP) MUST be set for Prefix-SIDs allocated to inter- area prefixes that are originated by the ABR based on intra-area or inter-area reachability between areas. When the