Hi Joe/team,
I reviewed the L3NM document and created issues 266, 267, 268 and 269 to the
GIT repository.
- L3NM: Adding leaf for vlan virtual interface id
- L3NM: Missing BGP update source for BGP clients
- L3NM: BGP client, redistribute connected ipv4 / ipv6 addresses
- L3NM: Multi-hop client
Hello,
I implemented the “draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-03” (Revision 2020-04-03) on
Cisco NSO and Cisco Crosswork Network Controller. I am happy to fill any forms
(sorry but new to the WG).
The good news is that I did not find any syntax problem and was able to compile
and implement the full mo
Hi Oscar,
Thursday was a national holiday and I was not able to participate.
I believe I did say in my previous email that there are not syntax issues with
using the union of an empty leaf. I implemented two logics for dynamic rd, one
using the current draft construct and one using a different
Hi Oscar,
If I am a developer that only want to implement l2nm, having a dependency on
l3nm does not sound as the right architecture IMHO.
This probably goes into the same discussion as of common module for types and
libraries for any shared structures.
Regards,
Roque
On 26.05.20, 19:59, "
tation-specific.
Also in your proposed, I think RD should be defined as
rt-types:route-distinguisher instead of empty type.
[Roque] Correct, see above (copy and paste error)
Roque
-Qin
发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)
发送时间: 2020年5月26日 17:39
收件人: Oscar
Hi Joe,
I support adding an L2NM model to our WG. I would recommend changing the name
to simply "draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm".
Here are my initial comments that I wish the author to address as we move into
WG item:
1) I believe L2NM should not have dependencies on other service definitions
just to
://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/issues/114
Regards,
Roque
From: OPSAWG on behalf of "Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)"
Date: Monday, 1 June 2020 at 21:15
To: Qin Wu , Oscar González de Dios
, opsawg
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Minutes of L3NM/L2NM module discussions
Hi Qin,
You are absolutel
Hi Qin,
“Regarding bgp-max-prefix, I personal feel it is different from maximum-routes
which is applicable to all protocols while bgp max prefix is bgp specific,
threshold and action parameters only tie with bgp maximum prefix parameter.”
I agree with your comment. Additionally, maybe a more in
Hi,
I support adoption as expressed in the list already.
Roque
From: OPSAWG on behalf of SAMIER BARGUIL GIRALDO
Date: Friday, 14 August 2020 at 09:42
To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" , opsawg
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-bgbw-opsawg-vpn-common
Hello WG,
I Support the adoptio
