Hi Alvaro,
On 3/23/20, 5:17 AM, "Peter Psenak" <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi Alavaro,
On 20/03/2020 19:23, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> On March 20, 2020 at 10:34:59 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
>
>
> Peter:
>
>
>>>>> I don't really see why one would affect the other.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. BMI-MSD is an egress capability and ERLD-MSD is an ingress
>>>> capability. While they may be related in the internal ASIC
implementation,
>>>> they are independent from a capability perspective.
>>>
>>> Please write that then.
>>
>> there are many MSDs defined already, are we going to write that the new
>> MSD type is not interacting with any other MSD each time we define a new
>> one?
>
> Yes, when they could be related, we are. More importantly, the reason
> why the will not interact, which is what Acee’s text points to.
honestly I do not see a reason to say that they do not interact. Because
if I use your logic I would have to mention hundred other node
capabilities that ERLD-MSD is not interacting with. My logic is that if
something interacts it needs to be specified, if it does not, it does
not need to be.
I agree. It seems like a slippery slope to specifically call out protocol
elements which not related from a protocol standpoint.
Thanks,
Acee
>
> BTW, according to the registry there are only 2 MSDs defined:
>
https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-msd-types
there are more defined for SRv6 - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-06.
thanks,
Peter
>
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
