Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

Hi, Peter, The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [ RFC7810 ]". When reading RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs: 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV Could you please clarify

[Lsr] WGLC request for draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang

Hi Chairs, On behalf of the authors, I’d like to request WG LC of “YANG Model for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs”: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/ This model severs as a foundation for future OSPFv3 extensions using extended LSAs (RFC 8362) and will be

[Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-03.txt

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 : YANG Model for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs Authors : Acee Lindem Sharmila Palani

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

Peter, >> . The existing description in section 5.1 indicate that legacy encoding >> (RFC7810 and RFC5305) is used for link attributes. That is not correct based >> upon section 11. To avoid ambiguity can an explicit reference be added for >> [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]? > > > well, section

[Lsr] WG LC Request for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Hi Acee, Chris, as discussed during the WG meeting last week, on behalf of all authors of draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo, I would like to ask for the WG LC. thanks, Peter ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

Hi Gunter, On 06/08/2020 19:11, Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote: Thanks for the clarification and fast answer. Indeed FAD does not encode any attributes. That was not the point I was trying to make. . The existing description in section 5.1 indicate that legacy encoding

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02

Tony – If the choice is to use a prefix, I do not know why you even raise the possibility of advertising the SID other than how Prefix SIDs are done today. Is the current Reachability advertisement inadequate in some way? I don’t think so. Les From: Tony Li Sent: Thursday, August 06,

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02

Hi Les, > 1)Invent a new type of SID which is associated with an area. > In this case some variation of encodings defined in V2 of the draft are > appropriate. But these aren’t backward compatible, which operators clearly want. > 2)Use a reachable address to get to the area. That address