Reviewer: Mirja Kühlewind
Review result: Ready
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow t
> I also think that service nodes that cannot be bypassed typically would
advertise themselves as “stub nodes” in IGP
That is not always possible without extra cost. I guess "service" means
many things to various people :)
I have real production case where only a small subset of traffic should be
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your response. Let us also wait for inputs from others in the WGs.
One small bit.
[KT] By giving different types for OSPF and ISIS, is the intention to
troubleshoot routing preference selection (done based on "admin distance"
between protocol selection in RIB)?
Thomas> "a
Hi Ketan,
Thank you very much for the feedback.
[KT] Why not extend the existing IPFIX MPLS Label Type (value 46) to add SR
Prefix SID, SR Adjacency SID, SR Binding SID ... (basically the segment types
from RFC8402)? It's a simpler change to an existing element/field that makes it
easier for r
