Hi, Robert:
From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert
Raszuk
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 6:21 PM
To: Aijun Wang
Cc: Peter Psenak ; Huzhibo
; Aijun Wang ; lsr
; Acee Lindem (acee) ; Xiaoyaqun
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
Hi Bruno,
>
> [Bruno] Agreed so far.
> Do we agree that draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy uses the SID/Label sub-TLV?
> We both agree that this sub-TLV has no mention of the global flag nor the
> routing algoto be used.
So far, we do NOT have agreement on that. Your argument yesterday
Les,
Please see inline.
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 4:50 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02
Bruno -
Please see inline.
From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of
Bruno -
Please see inline.
From: Lsr On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2020 5:45 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02
Hi,
I may be missing something but the SR Binding SID TLV extension is not clear
to me.
1. It does not
Hi,
I may be missing something but the SR Binding SID TLV extension is not clear
to me.
1) It does not seem compliant with RFC 8667
Draft says that the advertisement has: T-flag set, M & A flags cleared,
SID/Label sub-TLV present, Prefix-SID sub-TLV NOT present
The following
