ssage-
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
Sent: 15 November 2018 20:55
To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; lsr@ietf.org
Cc: Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) ; Mahendra
Singh Negi
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions -
small change
Hi Peter,
I agree -
Negi
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions - small
change
Hi Peter,
I agree - it is not needed in OSPFv3 Extended LSAs.
Hi Dirk, Mahendra,
How will this impact your implementations?
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/15/18, 9:48 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak (ppsenak
Hi Peter,
I agree - it is not needed in OSPFv3 Extended LSAs.
Hi Dirk, Mahendra,
How will this impact your implementations?
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/15/18, 9:48 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak (ppsenak)"
wrote:
Hi,
as a part of the RtgDir review we got a comment about the usage
Hi,
as a part of the RtgDir review we got a comment about the usage of the
IA bit in the OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV (Section 5).
We defined this bit for OSPFv2 originally. In OSPFv2 Extended Prefix
Range TLV is carried as a top level TLV of the Extended Prefix Opaque
LSA, which is not
