Hi Jeff
>From a domain perspective where you have a group of nodes and associated IP
addressed and SID are part of a discrete underlay instance flex algo
topology. On those same set of nodes you could have another topology and
associated address and SIDs for a different flex algo. How this
I support WG adoption of this draft.
I agree that OSPF needs the functionality equivalent to that defined for
IS-IS in RFC 8668.
I think the draft should include similar to RFC 8668 section 3 parallel
layer 3 adjacencies 3 similar Sub TLVs mentioned flag for multiple parallel
adjacencies.
Also
Hi Yingzhen,
Yes, that’s the case. The most important property of an algo computed path is
that is has to be consecutive, as either SID or IP address associated with a
particular topology is only known within that topology.
Looking specifically at Ron’s draft (MPLS could be more complex due to
I support WG adoption of this draft.
OSPF needs functionality equivalent to that defined for IS-IS in RFC 8668.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2020 5:03 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ;
yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
On Oct 2, 2020, 5:03 AM -0700, Christian Hopps , wrote:
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-l2bundles/
>
> Please indicate your support or objection by October 16, 2020.
>
> Authors,
Hi Peter,
My understanding of flex-algo is that for traffic destined to a prefix on a
particular algo, it can only be routed on routers belong to that algo, which
also means only routers in that algo calculates how to reach that prefix and
install it into the routing table. It seems to me that
Thanks Peter!
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 12:42 PM Peter Psenak wrote:
> Gyan,
>
>
>
> On 02/10/2020 18:30, Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
> > All,
>
> >
>
> > With SRv6 and IP based flex algo a generic question as it applies to
>
> > both. Is it possible to have within a single IGP domain different sets
>
>
Speaking as WG member:
I support WG adoption of this document. It is needed for IS-IS parity and there
are already other non-WG documents referencing it.
Thanks,
Acee
On 10/2/20, 8:05 AM, "Christian Hopps" wrote:
This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
Gyan,
On 02/10/2020 18:30, Gyan Mishra wrote:
All,
With SRv6 and IP based flex algo a generic question as it applies to
both. Is it possible to have within a single IGP domain different sets
of nodes or segments of the network running different algorithms.
absolutely.
From
both drafts
Hi Ron
I really like the idea of being able to use flex algo over native IPv4 or
IPv6. I had asked that very question early on with flex algo and wondered
if there was a way to support it with native IP.
Great concept and idea!!
As mentioned in the thread as you are using loopbacks associated
This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-l2bundles/
Please indicate your support or objection by October 16, 2020.
Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR
that applies to this
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
The LSR WG has placed draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-l2bundles in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Christian Hopps)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-l2bundles/
___
Lsr mailing list
Thanks for the update, a couple issues remain.
[ ] 7.1 and 8.1
The reserved bits for "SRv6 Locator TLV" and "SRv6 End.X SID sub-TLV" are
defined differently (and probably incorrectly) than the other reserved bits.
Reserved bits "MUST" be set to zero, not "SHOULD", I believe.
[ ] 11.
> On Sep 22, 2020, at 1:21 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>
>
> One final question: I may be confused but my understanding of IS-IS is
> that there are Level 1 links, Level 2 links, and links that are both
> Level 1 and 2. A border router between Level 1 and Level 2 is a router
> that has both
Hi Acee,
I am not aware of any IPR other than the one already disclosed below.
thanks,
Peter
On 01/10/2020 22:24, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Authors,
The following IPR has been disclosed (excerpted from
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft=draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo):
16 matches
Mail list logo
