Hi Robert,
-ļ It was not meant to be a silver-bullet by saying ā5Gā. It happened that I
have been discussing with folks on the design of the mobile backhaul/core/MEC.
Most of the designers and planners of the mobile backhaul/core/MEC do not work
on routing technologies themselves, instead
I object the introduction of a new major concept, called "zone".
It adds nothing to solve problems we can not already solve.
It just adds unnecessary complexity and technical debt.
(12) In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there
is nothing left to add, but when there is
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 : IGP Flexible Algorithm
Authors : Peter Psenak
Shraddha Hegde
Hi Veerendranatha,
On 19/08/2020 11:48, Veerendranatha Reddy V wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the reply.
As per the discussion, my understanding is Range TLV defined mainly be used
for SRMS entries (to get entries from LDP , for LDP Interoperability).
The use case mentioned is different from
Olivier,
On 19/08/2020 13:42, olivier.dug...@orange.com wrote:
Hi all
I think the clarification is mandatory and not only in section 5.1 and
not only for the delay.
Indeed, section 5.1 makes reference to [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app] while
section 17.1.2 makes reference to RFC8570 with the same
Hi all
I think the clarification is mandatory and not only in section 5.1 and not only
for the delay.
Indeed, section 5.1 makes reference to [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app] while section
17.1.2 makes reference to RFC8570 with the same error. And what about reference
to RFC7471 for OSPF ? And, I also
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the reply.
For OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV (defined in RFC 7684) has route type and it
supports NSSA External Prefixes to carry SID information.
In the same way, if Range TLV has Route-Type , we can extend to support for
NSSA ASBR to send Range TLVs for redistributed
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the reply.
As per the discussion, my understanding is Range TLV defined mainly be used
for SRMS entries (to get entries from LDP , for LDP Interoperability).
The use case mentioned is different from SRMS (redistribution across IGP
protocols) , Range TLV is not applicable
Hi Peter,
It is not related to SRMS.
If there exist ISIS/OSPF or two instances of OSPF in same device, and all are
supporting ST, then I can redistribute SR Prefix information to OSPF from other
OSPF instance or from ISIS.
In this case, I may use range TLV to reduce the number of Prefix TLVs, by
Hi Ketan,
Please find the response in line.
The IA flag in the OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV does not indicate that the
prefix-SID mapping advertised via it is for use for only intra or inter area
prefixes. The mappings can be used for assignment of SIDs for ALL types of OSPF
prefixes -
Hi Ketan,
Please find the response in line.
The IA flag in the OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV does not indicate that the
prefix-SID mapping advertised via it is for use for only intra or inter area
prefixes. The mappings can be used for assignment of SIDs for ALL types of OSPF
prefixes -
Hi Peter,
While redistributing prefix Sid for the prefixes from other protocols (Ex: from
ISIS or other OSPF instances), we can consider as range TLV for the prefixes
which are advertised in the range TLV in that protocol.
If it is NSSA, then we need to advertise these redistributed prefixes as
Hi Veerendranatha,
Please check inline below with [KT2]
-Original Message-
From: Veerendranatha Reddy V
Sent: 19 August 2020 13:07
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV usage for
Veerendranatha,
On 19/08/2020 11:19, Veerendranatha Reddy V wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the reply.
For OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV (defined in RFC 7684) has route type and it
supports NSSA External Prefixes to carry SID information.
In the same way, if Range TLV has Route-Type , we can extend
Veerendranath,
On 19/08/2020 10:03, Veerendranatha Reddy V wrote:
Hi Peter,
It is not related to SRMS.
If there exist ISIS/OSPF or two instances of OSPF in same device, and all are
supporting ST, then I can redistribute SR Prefix information to OSPF from other
OSPF instance or from ISIS.
Hi Veerendranatha,
On 19/08/2020 06:23, Veerendranatha Reddy V wrote:
Hi Peter,
While redistributing prefix Sid for the prefixes from other protocols (Ex: from
ISIS or other OSPF instances), we can consider as range TLV for the prefixes
which are advertised in the range TLV in that protocol.
Hi Richard,
I understand that these days you say "5G" and you are done for any use
case. :)
So I read this paper:
https://www.etsi.org/images/files/ETSIWhitePapers/etsi_wp28_mec_in_5G_FINAL..pdf
There is nothing there which would indicate a need for zone or even area
separation to effectively
17 matches
Mail list logo
