Hi, Peter: Aijun Wang China Telecom
> On Jan 5, 2022, at 23:57, Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > Aijun, > >> On 05/01/2022 16:20, Aijun Wang wrote: >> [WAJ] The above remote information must be configured manually on the local >> device. It is paired by manual. Thinking there are many links among the >> ASBRs, would you like to configure them manually for every remote ends on >> each link? We are looking for the automatic pairing solution. >> The prefixes that associated with the stub link can assist to accomplish >> this task automatically. > > If the ISIS/OSPF adjacency is not formed over the link, you need to manually > configure remote endpoint parameters. Defining a new TLV is not going to make > any difference. [WAJ] Automatic Pairing and Manual Pairing has big differences for operators. > > Using the local subnet information for identifying two endpoints of the same > link does not sound appealing to me. > > We have link local/remote IDs (and IP addresses) to pair the two endpoints of > the link in both OSPF and ISIS. We do not need another mechanism for the > same. In addition, what you propose does not work for unnumbered links. [WAJ] The unnumbered link is seldom used within the operator network, especially for the boundary link. The proposed solution can cover almost all the stub-link related scenarios. > > I don't see a need for the new stub-link advertisement. [WAJ] Such TLV/sub-TLV can also be used to transfer the attributes that related to the edge computing servers. > > thanks, > Peter > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
