Hi Mankamana Mishra and Luc Andre,
Thanks for replying and sorry for quoting wrong type, yes its Type-0
instead of Type-1.
As clarified in the draft Type-0 also can follow same Es-import RT as long
as it doesnt overlap, that's good.
Was trying to understand Type-3 how PE's MAC is going to make
Hi,
The changes can be seen in the diff and are mainly to address Yuanlong's
comments.
- 3.1.1 clarify text
- 3.2.1.2 clarify text and note two possible sub-TLVs of the Hop TLV
- 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.1.4 split into two sub-TLVs and explain their use
- 10.3 fix up IANA section per 3.2.1.3/4
- 12 add
Adrian, yes lets discuss in Montreal to see how we can move fwd here.
On 01/07/2018, 14:11, "Adrian Farrel" wrote:
Wim asked...
> would you consider adding an MPLS label to the SFIR route in order to
> support https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-malis-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-01.
Wim asked...
> would you consider adding an MPLS label to the SFIR route in order to
> support https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-malis-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-01.
I think that the idea of making such an addition is fine, but (and no offence
meant to the authors of
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.
Title : BGP Control Plane for NSH SFC
Authors : Adrian Farrel
John Drake
Hey Yuanlong,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
> I had a review of draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-03, thank you for this
useful
> document and hope it can progress quickly.
>
> In my opinion, this version still has some ambiguities which need to be
cleaned up:
>
> 1. In Section
