Dear Bruno Decraene,
The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the scheduled session information followed by
the original request.
spring Session 1 (2:00 requested)
Wednesday, 7 November 2018, Morning Session I 0900-1100
Room Name: Chitlada 2 size: 250
Hi Stefano,
Yes, thanks for your reply.
Regards,
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: stefano previdi [mailto:stef...@previdi.net]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 3:06 PM
To: Chengli (IP Technology Research)
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-pol...@ietf.org;
Get!
So actually, in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy, a SR policy is
identified by the tuple .
Within an SR policy, a candidate path has its distinguisher. So a Candidate can
be identified by .
In draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy, an SR policy(Actually, it is a
candidate
> On Oct 19, 2018, at 9:00 AM, Chengli (IP Technology Research)
> wrote:
>
> Hi Stefano,
>
> Please see line.
>
> Cheng
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: stefano previdi [mailto:stef...@previdi.net]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 2:49 PM
> To: Chengli (IP Technology Research)
>
Hi Stefano,
Please see line.
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: stefano previdi [mailto:stef...@previdi.net]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 2:49 PM
To: Chengli (IP Technology Research)
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-pol...@ietf.org;
Hi Cheng,
to my understanding the definition of an SR Policy
(draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy) is correct.
An SR Policy may include different paths and each of these paths may be
advertised in a different way (BGP, PCEP, static, ...).
BGP extensions described in
Hi authors,
I am working on updating drafts of path segment extensions in BGP/BGP-LS:
*
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution-00
*
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-00
But I found the inconsistency of
