Les,
> Whether ASLA sub-TLV is present in IS-Neighbor TLV and whether it has
> zero-length ABM on non-zero-length ABM is irrelevant to the use of ASLA SRLG
> TLV - and vice versa.
Can you state this explicitly in the document?
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Les Ginsberg
Hi Les,
I am proposing to include the text I sent along with your text.
You basically want to imply that when there is an ASLA advertised with an
application bit set
That application MUST use all link attributes that can appear in ASLA from only
ASLAs
having the specific application bit set
This document (and the code point) are intended to be in line with 5309.
I believe they are. If we got it wrong, please help us fix it.
A reference would be reasonable to add. (The IANA entry for the code
point does reference 5309.)
Thank you,
Joel
On 6/16/2021 4:41 PM, Acee Lindem
Hi Joel,
At first I wondered where this document should reside and then decided that LSR
is probably as good as any other place.
Can you guys check whether it is mostly in line with
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5309/ and comment as to whether it should
be referenced?
Thanks,
Acee
I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this document.
Cheers,
Clarence
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 16:01
To: lsr@ietf.org
Cc: Christian Hopps ; lsr-...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo@ietf.org
Subject: Second Working Last Call for
Gunter -
There is no relationship between the ASLA SRLG TLV and IS-Neighbor TLV.
I do not understand why you would think that there is.
Whether ASLA sub-TLV is present in IS-Neighbor TLV and whether it has
zero-length ABM on non-zero-length ABM is irrelevant to the use of ASLA SRLG
TLV - and
Shraddha -
I believe we are in agreement on when zero length ABM ASLA sub-TLVs can be used
and when they cannot.
The new text we proposed is:
"Link attributes MAY be advertised associated with zero-length Application
Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and user-defined
Another item of ambiguity is whether "wildcarding" applies also to the ISIS
TE-Appl-Spec-SRLG TLV.
It seems that the RFC8919 does not specify it.
Note: for OSPF the wildcarding also applies to SRLG info because it is
transported via the same container TLV as the other TE attributes.
Example 1
Recently, Ericsson requested and received an IF Type assignment from
IANA (with expert review) for point-to-point over Ethernet links.
It was noted during the discussion around the assignment that a document
(eventually, we hope, an RFC) describing how to use that and why we
asked for it
Hi,
I think that there may still be some ambiguity arising from the text below due
to the fact that
There are attributes such as maximum-link-bandwidth which have special
behaviour mentioned in later sections.
"Link attributes MAY be advertised associated with zero-length Application
Hi Acee/All,
I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this draft.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 16 June 2021 19:31
To: lsr@ietf.org
Cc: Christian Hopps ; lsr-...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo@ietf.org
Subject: Second Working Last Call for
Hi Acee,
I'm not aware of any other IPR beyond what is already posted.
thanks,
Peter
On 16/06/2021 16:00, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
After the first successful WG last call, the authors discovered that
some re-work was needed for OSPF AS External route calculation –
specifically with respect
After the first successful WG last call, the authors discovered that some
re-work was needed for OSPF AS External route calculation – specifically with
respect to the Flex Algorithm ASBR metrics and calculation. This was fixed and
there were clarifications in the IANA section (see versions -14
13 matches
Mail list logo
