Hi Acee,,
I have reviewed the document. It leverages the IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) to
build SR-based VTNs, which is a good idea for network scenarios.
I also believe it is practical for NRP deployment. The current document is
mature enough, so I support its WGLC.
Thanks,
Changwang
-Origin
Hi Hent,
Thank you for your comments. I would like to provide feedback based on the
scenario and type of this document.
The approach in this document is aimed at network scenarios where the required
number of NRPs is not too high. As an operator, we believe such scenario would
be typical fo
>From the draft:
===
> The mechanism described in this document is considered useful for network
> scenarios in which
> the required number of NRP is small, as no control protocol extension is
> required. For network
> scenarios where the number of required NRP is large, more scalable solution
>
Hi all,
I have reviewed the draft，and support its adoption.
I think the proposed protocol extension can simplify significantly the recovery
and management of inter-AS topology, and also facilitate the optimal forwarding
path selection based on the attributes of stub links.
Best regards
Guozhe
Hi lsr WG，
I think the draft is mature enough and well-written after more than 3 years
work, and I support moving it forward.
Best regards
Guozhen
> 2024年1月9日 06:50，Acee Lindem 写道：
>
> This begins a two week LSR Working Group last call for the “Applicability of
> IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) f
