OK. Crystal clear.
Thanks Peter.
--Bruno
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 4:59 PM
> To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET ; Acee Lindem
> (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr-...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ;
> draft-ietf-lsr-flex-
> a
Shraddha -
New text will be added to RFC 8919 Section 4.2 immediately after the existing
text:
"If the SABM or UDABM Length in the Application Identifier Bit Mask is
greater than 8, the entire sub-TLV MUST be ignored."
Additional Text:
"When SABM or UDABM Length is non-zero and the L-flag i
Hi Bruno,
On 17/06/2021 16:12, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Hi,
I have a question/comment.
I think that we all agree that FlexAlgo/Link State computation requires
that all node use the same topology to compute their SPF. Otherwise,
permanent forwarding loops are probable.
https://datat
Hi Rudy,
please see inline:
On 17/06/2021 15:38, Selderslaghs, Rudy (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
Hi Les,
The question remains whether an ISIS Appl-Spec-SRLG TLV with SABML 0 and
UDABML 0 means that it is valid for all applications or not.
This is currently not specified in RFC8919.
Secondly
Hi,
I have a question/comment.
I think that we all agree that FlexAlgo/Link State computation requires that
all node use the same topology to compute their SPF. Otherwise, permanent
forwarding loops are probable.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-16#section-12
say
Hi Les,
The question remains whether an ISIS Appl-Spec-SRLG TLV with SABML 0 and UDABML
0 means that it is valid for all applications or not.
This is currently not specified in RFC8919.
Secondly the approach to handle ISIS Appl-Spec-SRLG TLVs independently from
ASLA sub-TLVs in the context of o
