Re: [Idr] 2 week adoption call for draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-02 (5/22 to 6/5)

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Support the adoption and agree with Acee’s comment.

-Jie

From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:54 PM
To: Jeff Tantsura; Susan Hares; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 week adoption call for draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-02 (5/22 to 6/5)

I support with one comment.

In the future, I’m wondering if we could standardize the BGP Link State encoding in the corresponding IGP documents? It seems like it would be possible since it is simply the TLV mapping and the  IANA code point(s).

Thanks,
Acee

From: Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, May 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 week adoption call for draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-02 (5/22 to 6/5)

Support as co-author

Cheers,
Jeff

From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, May 22, 2015 at 4:26 AM
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Idr] 2 week adoption call for draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-02 (5/22 to 6/5)

This begins a 2 week Working Group adoption for draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution.   You can find the draft at:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution/

This draft proposes a new BGP-LS


   As MPLS-TE network grows, administrative Groups advertised as a

   fixed-length 32-bit Bitmask is quite constraining.  "Extended

   Administrative Group" IGP TE extensions sub-TLV defined in [RFC7308<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7308>]

   is introduced to provide for additional administrative groups (link

   colors) beyond the current limit of 32.



   The EAG TLV is used in addition to the Administrative Groups when a

   node wants to advertise more than 32 colors for a link.  The EAG TLV

   is optional.  The format and semantics of the 'value' fields in EAG

   TLVs correspond to the format and semantics of value fields in IGP

   extension sub-TLVs, defined in [RFC7308<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7308>].



   +------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+

   |  TLV Code  |     Description     |     IS-IS    |   Defined in:   |

   |    Point   |                     |  TLV/Sub-TLV |                 |

   +------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+

   |    xxxx    |       Extended      |     22/xx    |    [RFC7308<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7308>]    |

   |            |      Admin Group    |              |                 |

   +------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+

Please in your comments include “support” or “no support” for this draft.

Sue Hares and John Scudder.