IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Isis-wg] SRLG Stuff with draft-ginsberg-isis-te-app-00

Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> Thu, 01 June 2017 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822E6129427 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X6JBnbYXdU8z for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90AD11200C5 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DHS84619; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 20:43:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:43:09 +0100
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.56]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.117]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:43:06 -0700
From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: SRLG Stuff with draft-ginsberg-isis-te-app-00
Thread-Index: AdLaagDCKviKM/vDQIu/ZYvkdw4/TQACgcuAACM3CHAABGYpsAAAuw1A
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 20:43:05 +0000
Message-ID: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F5726854018BC6C1@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F5726854018BC418@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com> <8e1056ec1de34c3abea5f9a9d9502e25@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <25B4902B1192E84696414485F5726854018BC653@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com> <78c0c60004a340f69c9f8019a8c4234d@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <78c0c60004a340f69c9f8019a8c4234d@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.213.49.181]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_25B4902B1192E84696414485F5726854018BC6C1SJCEML701CHMchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.59307C5F.000C, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.56, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 4e6a6a81f8c9544f4a7fc6564f9b40d4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/fKqc50yu7d-KhfMn39_-emgV_h8>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] SRLG Stuff with draft-ginsberg-isis-te-app-00
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 20:43:15 -0000

Les,

Sure, we can have others opinions.


>1)Invent a new top level TLV to support per APP advertisements. This is what the draft currently defines.

>2)Define a new sub-sub-TLV to be used in TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 which would allow per APP srlg advertisement within the scope of the new Application Specific Link Attributes sub-TLV.
>This seems to be the option you prefer.

>I am saying there are arguments for both approaches - and would be interested in what other folks think would be best.

Agree, 138/139 doesn't have sub-TLVs so you can't introduce application knowledge staying with those (my miss).
I see you introduced the sub-TLVs in #1 (draft-ginsberg-isis-te-app), which are also  present in TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 registry.

So, indeed we have above both options only and yes, I suggest #2.

Cheers!
--
Uma C.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email