Yes/support
Best regards,
Mach
> -Original Message-
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:l...@pi.nu]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 6:53 AM
> To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> Cc: mpls-cha...@ietf.org
> Subject: MPLS wg aoption poll on on draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd
>
Hi, All:
I have read this draft and support its adoption.
I think it is one interesting topic for failure detection for multicast service.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> From: Loa Andersson
> Date: Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 5:53 PM
> Subject: MPLS wg aoption poll on on draft-mirsky-mpls
t; 收件人: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> 抄送: mpls-cha...@ietf.org
> 主题: MPLS wg aoption poll on on draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd
>
> BFD Working Group ,
>
> The MPLS working group has started an working group adopton poll on
> draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd. Support/non-support and comments
Support the adoption.
-邮件原件-
发件人: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Loa Andersson
发送时间: 2021年12月14日 06:53
收件人: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
抄送: mpls-cha...@ietf.org
主题: MPLS wg aoption poll on on draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd
BFD Working Group ,
The MPLS working group has started an working
The MPLS working group can't hear you over here. :-)
-- Jeff (kindly examine the headers of your replies...)
> On Dec 13, 2021, at 6:23 PM, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
>
> Yes/support
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
>> On Dec 13, 2021, at 14:53, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>
>> draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd
Yes/support the adoption (as co-author).
Regards,
Greg
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:53 PM Loa Andersson wrote:
> BFD Working Group ,
>
> The MPLS working group has started an working group adopton poll on
> draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd. Support/non-support and comments should be
> s
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
> On Dec 13, 2021, at 14:53, Loa Andersson wrote:
>
> draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd
BFD Working Group ,
The MPLS working group has started an working group adopton poll on
draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd. Support/non-support and comments should be
sent to the mpls mailing list (m...@ietf.org).
/Loa
--
Loa Anderssonemail: l...@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
following text has been added to the Security Considerations section in the
> recenly uploaded -04 version of the draft:
>
>
> Adding scope and rationale for some work in the Security Considerations
> does not seem like the right sequentiality to set the stage.
>
> Also, BFD fo
-ACh or G-ACh
Thanks,
— Carlos Pignataro
On Oct 13, 2018, at 4:24 PM, Greg Mirsky
mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear WG Chairs, et al.,
as the author of the BFD for Multipoint Networks over Point-to-Multi-Point MPLS
LSP (draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd) I would like to ask you to
new TLV (of which information structure?) carries the IP address
> that you removed before? Seems like a musical-chairs arrangement of the
> data. I may very likely be missing something. Apologies in advance if that
> is the case.
>
> CMP: Also, is the applicability MPLS-TP? What
fy the overburden)?
I’m also increasingly concerned by confusing scope and definition of
specifications.
For example:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-04#section-3.2
3.2. Non-IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD
Non-IP encapsulation for multipoint BFD over p2mp MPLS LSP MUS
n the
working verion. Will work on improving the text in the meantime.
>
>
>> I’m also increasingly concerned by confusing scope and definition of
>> specifications.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-04#section-3.2
>
and the
burden comparison between IP/UDP and G-ACh.
I’m also increasingly concerned by confusing scope and definition
of specifications.
For example:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-04#section-3.2
3.2. Non-IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD
useful to
add precision into which environments specifically, and the burden comparison
between IP/UDP and G-ACh.
I’m also increasingly concerned by confusing scope and definition of
specifications.
For example:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-04#section-3.2
3.2. Non-IP Encapsu
Hi Greg,
Is the goal to be adopted by BFD WG (the draft says BFD Working Group)? If so,
it should be renamed to draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-p2mp. OTOH I don’t see any
proposed BFD changes in this draft, so is this targeted for MPLS WG?
Thanks,
Reshad.
net-dra...@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:18 AM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-01.txt
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>
A new version of I-D, draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted
ersion Notification for draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-00.txt
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>
A new version of I-D, draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd
Revisi
18 matches
Mail list logo
