Hannes -
>
> should be go down and spin off dedicated drafts for OSPF and IS-IS to
> explicitly advertise the
> transport IP address ?
>
Speaking specifically about IS-IS, why would we need to invent yet another type
of advertisement specifically for remote LFA? Here's a snippet from RFC 5305
Rob -
I haven't seen anyone on this thread suggest that if a router ID is
available/reachable that it should not be preferred/used. Local policies could
make any particular address unusable, but it would seem unusual for a customer
to configure a box to advertise a /32 which it also prevents fr
From: Rob Shakir [mailto:r...@rob.sh]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:38 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: identifying IP address of targeted LDP session in draft-ietf-
> rtgwg-remote-lfa-00
>
> Hi Les,
>
> Apologies for the delay i
Pushpassis -
From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pushpasis Sarkar
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 3:28 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura; stephane.litkow...@orange.com; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
HI Jeff et al,
I can think of a reas
Pushpassis -
From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:psar...@juniper.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 10:02 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Jeff Tantsura; stephane.litkow...@orange.com;
rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
Hi Les,
Some comments inl
Ginsberg (ginsberg); Jeff Tantsura;
stephane.litkowski@orange.cothe<mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.cothe>
abiloity to limit the set of prefixes m; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
Hi Les,
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" mailto
: stephane.litkow...@orange.com [mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 11:10 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Pushpasis Sarkar; Jeff Tantsura; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
[Les:] I think your point here is that
going to make some - count me
in. :-)
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Hannes Gredler [mailto:han...@juniper.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7:04 AM
> To: Acee Lindem (acee)
> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); stephane.litkow...@orange.com; Pushpasis
> Sarkar; Je
ore and
> >> | more routing and management protocols with IPv6. Still no need to
> >>protect
> >> | IPv6. Eventually I might shift LDP (or SR) from IPv4 controlled to
> >>IPv6
> >> | controlled. What was IPv6-over-IPv4-controlled-MPLS becomes plain
> >
Support.
Valuable description of a useful feature.
Les
From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 5:47 PM
To: Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy); Chris Bowers
Cc: Pradosh Mohapatra; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Request for WG adoption of draft
Stewart -
This draft discusses two things:
1)You propose to advertise "convergence time" so that routers utilizing a form
of FRR can determine when it is safe to start utilizing the post convergence
path. All this requires is advertisement of a value and definition of how
routers in the networ
From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7:43 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: isis...@ietf.org; rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; internet-dra...@ietf.org;
o...@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] New Version Notification for
Alia -
From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akat...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 8:33 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: OSPF List; isis...@ietf.org; rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] New Version Notification for
draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync-01.txt
On Feb 28, 2017
Russ -
Could you also clarify who sets the "DNR" bit in an LSP and when?
Is it the originator or one or more of the receivers? And does it have the same
state when flooded on all links or does it vary from link to link?
If the state of the bit is modified as part of the flooding I don't see how
In regards to the discussion regarding "
draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement" I am quoted as saying:
" Les: most of the analysis that I am aware of -
the largest contributor is the control plane."
In actuality what I said (or at least intended to say :-) ) was that the
largest contributor i
3 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: RTGWG
> Subject: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
>
> Changing the subject of the thread.
>
> Hi Les,
>
> As a follow up on the discussion
>
> > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 20
om
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 9:41 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: RTGWG
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
>
> Les,
>
> > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com] > Sent:
> Tuesday, April 18, 2017 5:56 PM
> >
Acee –
Did you look at the Appendix – which has ASCII art for some example encodings?
Les
From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 11:58 AM
To: Alia Atlas; OSPF List; rtgwg@ietf.org; idr@ietf. org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Fwd: Last C
I appreciate that the authors have modified the draft in response to some
comments I made - and I believe the changes satisfy my concerns.
I support WG adoption with one significant caveat - the title of the document
needs to be modified to accurately reflect the scope of the revised draft. This
Let me comment on some things from the perspective of someone who provided a
good deal of feedback on the draft, based on which the authors very kindly made
significant revisions.
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> Sen
For the record, I agree with Jeff's summary and comments.
I was really surprised that Greg did not wait until IETF 107 - which the BFD
chairs had already indicated would be the time to resume discussions of this
work.
However well intentioned, both the timing and the WG were inappropriate for
t
Jen (and co-authors) -
Thanx for reviving this work.
Can you comment on whether the need/use cases for this have changed/become
more/less important in the intervening years?
Do you also plan to revive
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-dst-src-routing/ ?
What routing prot
(Changed the subject to differentiate from all the other “slot requests”)
+1 to what Robert has said.
We already have multiple ways to provide information to any entity that is
interested – adding yet another transport doesn’t really help. Just burdens
implementations with even more transports
need/cost of defining yet
another transport.
Les
From: tanzhen (A)
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 12:57 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: 答复: Comments on draft-li-rtgwg-protocol-assisted-protocol
Hi Les,
The existing ways of getting O&M information are usually f
24 matches
Mail list logo
