The Link State Routing (lsr) Working Group will hold
a virtual interim meeting on 2020-04-29 from 10:00 to 12:00 America/Detroit.
Agenda:
Second LSR Virtual IETF 107 meeting date.
Information about remote participation:
Remote participation information will be obtained at the time of approval
A new interim meeting request has just been submitted by Christian Hopps.
This request requires approval by the Area Director of the Routing Area
The meeting can be approved here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim/request/interim-2020-lsr-02
FYI
Juniper Business Use Only
> -Original Message-
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 2:34 PM
> To: Shraddha Hegde ; Ron Bonica
> ; Rajesh M ; Parag Kaneriya
>
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions-
> 02.txt
>
>
>
Ok…let’s move forward. No need to add more text.
Alvaro.
On March 23, 2020 at 10:36:42 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) (a...@cisco.com) wrote:
Hi Alvaro,
On 3/23/20, 5:17 AM, "Peter Psenak" wrote:
Hi Alavaro,
On 20/03/2020 19:23, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> On March 20, 2020 at 10:34:59 AM, Peter
Peter,
The proposed SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV has several problems.
1) As discussed in item#3 below, it is not clear that flooding LB Length,
LN Length, Fun. Length, and Arg. Length to all ISIS speakers is really the
right approach. However, if the WG determines that it is the right
Hi Chris,
On 10/03/2020 11:10, Peter Psenak wrote:
What's wrong with "If this behavior is advertised it MUST only be advertised in the TLV[s] as indicated
by "Y" in the table below, and MUST NOT be advertised in the TLV[s] as indicated by "N"
in the table below." or something like that.\
Hi Chris,
cross-references have been fixed in the 07 version that has been posted
today.
thanks,
Peter
On 09/03/2020 11:39, Peter Psenak wrote:
Hi Chris,
you are right, there are some errors in cross-references, I'll fix them
in next version.
thanks,
Peter
On 07/03/2020 15:17,
Hi Alvaro,
On 3/23/20, 5:17 AM, "Peter Psenak" 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.
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
Title : IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over IPv6
Dataplane
Authors : Peter Psenak
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
