Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles

"Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <bashandy@cisco.com> Tue, 11 August 2015 00:05 UTC

Return-Path: <bashandy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05CD21A1B6D for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 17:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 450j0_3vIcJG for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 17:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4ADA1A1C03 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 17:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=48643; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1439251528; x=1440461128; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=W8zvRnFBbxjKXlMZs19tp8kNCtg9W4u0jCcD6xX8S44=; b=m5Du66+EpJw8fj3RyvK45YROSrU+QyparH++PKLc23UHleNoXcP316Qk LWbn33/KNFWsD+NzgC5z2nV0hKJwXe3YndPFZ26cMi+v0GO6Wzp9dnZRV Aw8x8s0S8NVhLb7xl5WDk+ogqUtZnCo33oGcZFMbbdcRIvTuPyCnJ8AY1 U=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,649,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="176864042"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Aug 2015 00:05:28 +0000
Received: from [128.107.165.110] (dhcp-128-107-165-110.cisco.com [128.107.165.110]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7B05RYq024427; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:05:27 GMT
Message-ID: <55C93C47.9070909@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 17:05:27 -0700
From: "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <bashandy@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stephane.litkowski@orange.com, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Ebben Aries <exa@fb.com>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list (isis-wg@ietf.org)" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
References: <26030_1438606960_55BF6670_26030_2637_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166BD55F@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <55C14D02.3040606@fb.com> <9343_1438762371_55C1C583_9343_425_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166BE011@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D1E7BBD9.2A539%acee@cisco.com> <29791_1438848107_55C3146B_29791_2196_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166BE386@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D1E8CF5E.2A64B%acee@cisco.com> <32556_1438867163_55C35EDB_32556_1906_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166BE558@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D1E8D9DC.2A680%acee@cisco.com> <17887_1438871493_55C36FC4_17887_18571_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166BE5E4@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D1E96BF1.2A765%acee@cisco.com> <26458_1438932511_55C45E1E_26458_1031_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166BE826@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <26458_1438932511_55C45E1E_26458_1031_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166BE826@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080201070903010807070809"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/q9s0iHXTwcw571-hgBbVlHsxdMg>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:57:46 -0700
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:05:38 -0000

Folks

In attempt to provide a relatively quantitative measurement of the 
proposed solutions to the problem at hand, I thought I would prepared a 
small comparison table between ISIS for L2 bundles, BGP-LS for L2 
bundles, and changing all L2 bundles members to L3 links as unnumbered 
interfaces. I put +1 for (IMHO) what looks like an advantage, -1 for 
(IMHO) what looks like a disdavantage, and (0) what looks like a minor 
disadvantage or advantage



	ISIS to advertise L2 bundles
	BGP-LS to advertise L2 bundle
	L2 bundles as unnumbered interfaces in ISIS
Scalability
	Minimal scale overheard (+1)
	Minimal scale overhead (+1)
	Significant scale overhead (-1)
Mandate the deployment of a protocol that was not deployed before
	No (+1)
	Yes (-1)
	No (+1)
Impact on basic routing functionality
	Minimal (+1)
	Minimal (+1)
	Significant (-1)
Works for both P2P and LAN
	Simple (+1)
	Simple (+1)
	Difficult (unnumbered not easy with LANs) (-1)
Using 1 protocol for diverse functionilities
	Yes (+1)
	No (-1)
	Yes (+1)
Exposing L2 info in L3 protocol
	Yes (-1) 	Yes (-1) 	No (+1)
Protocol change
	Yes (-1) 	Yes (-1)
	No (+1)
Risk
	Small (Minimal impact on baseline functionality and managements tools 
while not deploying any new protocol) (+1) 	Medium (Have to deploy 
BGP-LS everywhere) (0)
	Significant (Have to make sure that baseline functionality on all 
routers as well as management and monitoring tools are not impacted by 
the sharp scale increase) (-1)
Sum
	5
	-1
	-2



One Important point, I agree with Ebben that BGP-LS is not an 
alternative to using ISIS but rather a complementary solution to be used 
by networks that do not use ISIS and OSPF. If we assume that BGP-LS will 
be used by networks that already employ BGP, then using ISIS and BGP-LS 
will have almost the same score


Thanks

Ahmed



On 8/7/2015 12:28 AM, stephane.litkowski@orange.com wrote:
> The gain is that there is no need for a new ISIS extension, you can use TLV22 as usual.
> IMO, maintaining a real adjacency is not a big deal moreover it allow for detection of MTU mismatch ...
> And as the interface is an IP interface, there is no more "layer breakage".
>
> So to do this, no need of IETF standardization, just local behavior on the node.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 02:08
> To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Ebben Aries; isis-wg@ietf.org list (isis-wg@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles
>
> Hi Stephane,
>
> On 8/6/15, 10:31 AM, "stephane.litkowski@orange.com"
> <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> wrote:
>
>> Acee,
>>
>> Another possibility to address the requirement of TE per link within a
>> LAG bundle may be to create L3 adjacencies on each link in addition to
>> an adjacency for the bundle. This does not work today but ...
>> This would be a new way to manage LAGs, IMHO (as I'm not an
>> implementor), I don't see a reason for this to not work theorically.
>> Then each L3 protocol has the choice to use a bundle-view or a per-link
>> view. You will create more IGP adjacencies but that's not a big deal
>> (CPU are quite big now :) ).
>> This behavior is more clear than the one proposed in the draft, as the
>> target is to provide a kind of layer 3 forwarding on layer 2 links ...
>> here this would be a true layer 3 forwarding on layer 3 links.
>>
>> Example :
>>
>> Interface Port-Channel1
>> Ip address 1.1.1.1/30
>> Ip router isis
>> Isis metric 100
>> !
>> Interface Te10
>> Ip address 2.0.0.1/30
>> Channel-group 1
>> Ip router isis
>> Isis metric max-metric
>> !
>> Interface Te20
>> Ip address 3.0.0.1/30
>> Channel-group 1
>> Ip router isis
>> Isis metric max-metric
>> !
>>
>> Thoughts ?
> I don’t think you’d want to establish a separate adjacency over each of the LAG constituent links. I guess you may be inventing a lower overhead adjacency similar to a TE forwarding adjacency (RFC 4206) to represent the constituents. This would also work but I don’t see that much difference from the existing proposal other than the abstraction and that you have an anchor point for TE attributes (which could be a good thing if these proliferate).
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 15:34
>> To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Ebben Aries; isis-wg@ietf.org list
>> (isis-wg@ietf.org)
>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/6/15, 9:19 AM, "stephane.litkowski@orange.com"
>> <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think this may have implications beyond SR but it seems there are
>>> other areas where LAGs (aka, link-bundles) have permeated into L3
>>> (e.g., BFD - RFC 7130).
>>>
>>> [SLI] Fully agree, IMO, we must not let the doors wide open to this
>>> kind of permeation.
>> LAGs are ubiquitous and I think we are going to have to accommodate
>> them in L3 protocols even if it is a layer violation. But this is just
>> my opinion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 14:53
>>> To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Ebben Aries; isis-wg@ietf.org list
>>> (isis-wg@ietf.org)
>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles
>>>
>>> Hi Stephane,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/6/15, 4:01 AM, "stephane.litkowski@orange.com"
>>> <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Acee,
>>>>
>>>> Some comments inline
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 19:24
>>>> To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Ebben Aries; isis-wg@ietf.org list
>>>> (isis-wg@ietf.org)
>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stephane,
>>>> I think the IS-IS advertisement is merely a consequence of the fact
>>>> that we are satisfying the requirement of incorporating these L2
>>>> links in the segment routing path.
>>>> [SLI] Yes, and IMO, that's bad.
>>>
>>>
>>>> - I still have some doubt on the reason to split LAGs for TE and
>>>> keeping bundles for other protocols.
>>>> - Regarding TE, I don't really see how BW use cases can work with
>>>> this, as there may be some TE tunnels using the bundle and some using
>>>> specific link, so evaluating the remaining BW per link and for the
>>>> bundle is hard.
>>>> - This "breaks" layers, IGP exposes Layer 3 topology by design, not
>>>> layer
>>>> 2 ... if we want to expose layer 2, that's not an issue, it's a kind
>>>> of multilayer TE approach and BGP-LS may so come in the picture and
>>>> is a good candidate to retrieve topological information. I do not
>>>> want to see IS-IS or OSPF becoming a topology discovery protocol for
>>>> everything
>>>> :
>>>> while it's related to the Layer 3 topology it's fine to me to keep it
>>>> in the IGP for other informations, may be we need to find another way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we limit advertisement to BGP-LS, it will have the following impact:
>>>>
>>>>      1. All routers in the IS-IS domain that use link-bundles will
>>>> need some form of BGP LS peering, either to the controller directly
>>>> or through some intermediary.
>>>> [SLI] Agree but I don't see this as a negative point, as I think most
>>>> networks running TE, already have a BGP controlplane that can be reused.
>>> If there is BGP-LS peering on all the routers, then I agree that this
>>> would work given the right local policy to specify what BGP-LS
>>> information each router advertises.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>      2. Since the link-bundle itself is an IS-IS L3 link, one would
>>>> need to correlate the information with the corresponding IS-IS link
>>>> state information (assuming not every IS-IS router advertises the
>>>> entire LSDB).
>>>> [SLI] Agree there is a need of correlation, but correlation is
>>>> required in all cases (in the current proposal, we advertise some
>>>> parent link information).
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, any time the information is coming from multiple
>>>> sources, you are likely to trigger path computation more frequently.
>>>> [SLI] I would say that's implementation dependent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don’t think this added complexity warrants omitting them from the
>>>> IGPs if we do, in fact, accept link bundle adjacency steering as a
>>>> requirement.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Acee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/5/15, 4:12 AM, "Isis-wg on behalf of stephane.litkowski@orange.com"
>>>> <isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Pls find some inline comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Ebben Aries [mailto:exa@fb.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 01:39
>>>>> To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; isis-wg@ietf.org list
>>>>> (isis-wg@ietf.org)
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles
>>>>>
>>>>> I see BGP-LS extensions complementing this, not necessarily as a
>>>>> replacement.
>>>>> [SLI] It's for sure an option, but my point is do we need to
>>>>> continue to add extensions to both IGP and BGP LS ?
>>>>> Moreover I still have an issue with propagating L2 informations into
>>>>> layer 3 routing protocol  (not technically ... more from a design
>>>>> perspective).
>>>>> Let's say that tomorrow, you would like to advertise some L1
>>>>> information under your layer 2 information ... ?? As we are breaking
>>>>> layers, if you want to advertise some underlay topology, I would be
>>>>> in favor to not doing it in IGP.
>>>>>
>>>>> For a use-case of a central entity learning these underlying l2
>>>>> attributes to then do whatever you wish (impose label stacks, etc..)
>>>>> - BGP-LS is a natural fit.
>>>>> [SLI] Nothing prevents to use BGP-LS in a distributed computation
>>>>> model.
>>>>>
>>>>> For this to remain in the IGP, a consideration could be the
>>>>> propagation of these L2 attributes to then be included in TEDs for
>>>>> additional logic from headend nodes (network elements within the IGP
>>>>> domain) - e.g.
>>>>> control packet per member from a remote endpoint overriding remote
>>>>> hashing either by some policy/SLA or dynamic based off of per member
>>>>> utilization, etc..
>>>>>
>>>>> [SLI] Even if TED was previously populated only by IGP (because
>>>>> there was nothing else), this is not the case anymore. TED is also
>>>>> populated by BGP-LS and we may be able to create also new processes
>>>>> to populate the TED. So you can imagine having your process managing
>>>>> LAGs to add those L2 TE information into the TED and then being able
>>>>> to export it through BGP-LS to other nodes through the BGP
>>>>> controlplane, so every one will have the same content in the TED.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/03/2015 07:02 AM, stephane.litkowski@orange.com wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking again about this draft, I wondering why not using BGP-LS
>>>>>> for that purpose ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean, the goal here is just to provide some topological
>>>>>> information that are not related to IGP, as you want to keep L2
>>>>>> bundles and so a single IP link. If you want to expose the
>>>>>> underlaying topology, you may be able to do it in BGP-LS rather
>>>>>> than adding this in the IGP as the information you want to expose
>>>>>> is not necessary for the IGP to run.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thx
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Orange logo
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.orange.com/
>>>>>> &
>>>>>> k
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> Z
>>>>>> VNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=GJQFPrZyyh453ywaGV%2FvoQ%3D%3D%0A
>>>>>> &
>>>>>> m
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> x
>>>>>> DbMtpjPKPQ26eNh1Ka%2FhnXOqVfqYtZ9MjolqbbcT8U%3D%0A&s=75085ca9001f9
>>>>>> c
>>>>>> 7
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> 2
>>>>>> 4e6f23efb57f50f5d79a97cbadcbfe1ce65082d335dba35>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Stephane Litkowski *
>>>>>> Network Architect
>>>>>> Orange/SCE/EQUANT/IBNF/ENDD/NDE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Orange Expert Future Networks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> phone: +33 2 23 28 49 83
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://monsi.sso.fran
>>>>>> c
>>>>>> e
>>>>>> t
>>>>>> e
>>>>>> lecom.fr/index.asp?target%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fclicvoice.sso.franc
>>>>>> e
>>>>>> t
>>>>>> e
>>>>>> l
>>>>>> ecom.fr%252FClicvoiceV2%252FToolBar.do%253Faction%253Ddefault%2526
>>>>>> r
>>>>>> o
>>>>>> o
>>>>>> t
>>>>>> service%253DSIGNATURE%2526to%253D%26%2343%3B33%25202%252023%252028
>>>>>> %
>>>>>> 2
>>>>>> 5
>>>>>> 2
>>>>>> 049%252083%2520&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=GJQFPrZyyh453y
>>>>>> w
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> G
>>>>>> V
>>>>>> %2FvoQ%3D%3D%0A&m=xDbMtpjPKPQ26eNh1Ka%2FhnXOqVfqYtZ9MjolqbbcT8U%3D
>>>>>> %
>>>>>> 0
>>>>>> A &
>>>>>> s=4490d282c20720cdbe8d3350c17a191e1762a7ea211ff404be972fddea2f62f3
>>>>>> mobile: +33 6 37 86 97 52
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://monsi.sso.fran
>>>>>> c
>>>>>> e
>>>>>> t
>>>>>> e
>>>>>> lecom.fr/index.asp?target%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fclicvoice.sso.franc
>>>>>> e
>>>>>> t
>>>>>> e
>>>>>> l
>>>>>> ecom.fr%252FClicvoiceV2%252FToolBar.do%253Faction%253Ddefault%2526
>>>>>> r
>>>>>> o
>>>>>> o
>>>>>> t
>>>>>> service%253DSIGNATURE%2526to%253D%26%2343%3B33%25206%252037%252086
>>>>>> %
>>>>>> 2
>>>>>> 5
>>>>>> 2
>>>>>> 097%252052%2520&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=GJQFPrZyyh453y
>>>>>> w
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> G
>>>>>> V
>>>>>> %2FvoQ%3D%3D%0A&m=xDbMtpjPKPQ26eNh1Ka%2FhnXOqVfqYtZ9MjolqbbcT8U%3D
>>>>>> %
>>>>>> 0
>>>>>> A &
>>>>>> s=696fa2cd342bca61fdf5e849c8d3d76abe1075281d4218eaac873227641f9514
>>>>>> stephane.litkowski@orange.com
>>>>>> <mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> _ _ _ _ ___________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>>>>>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre
>>>>>> diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu
>>>>>> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le
>>>>>> detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques
>>>>>> etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute
>>>>>> responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
>>>>>> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should
>>>>>> not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>>>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
>>>>>> and delete this message and its attachments.
>>>>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that
>>>>>> have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Isis-wg mailing list
>>>>>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www.ietf.org/ma
>>>>>> i
>>>>>> l
>>>>>> m
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> n/listinfo/isis-wg&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=GJQFPrZyyh4
>>>>>> 5
>>>>>> 3
>>>>>> y
>>>>>> w
>>>>>> aGV%2FvoQ%3D%3D%0A&m=xDbMtpjPKPQ26eNh1Ka%2FhnXOqVfqYtZ9MjolqbbcT8U
>>>>>> %
>>>>>> 3
>>>>>> D
>>>>>> %
>>>>>> 0A&s=3211164dcbc94ec39a7390a5d1c8371f2c391ec0aeec8806884c6abfd4415
>>>>>> 1
>>>>>> 1
>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________________
>>>>> _ _ _ ___ _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>>>>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre
>>>>> diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu
>>>>> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le
>>>>> detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques
>>>>> etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite
>>>>> si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>>>
>>>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
>>>>> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not
>>>>> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
>>>>> and delete this message and its attachments.
>>>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that
>>>>> have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Isis-wg mailing list
>>>>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>>>>
>>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>>> _ _ ___ _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>>>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
>>>> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message
>>>> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi
>>>> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles
>>>> d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
>>>> altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>>
>>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
>>>> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not
>>>> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
>>>> and delete this message and its attachments.
>>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
>>>> been modified, changed or falsified.
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> _ ___ _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
>>> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message
>>> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi
>>> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles
>>> d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
>>> altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>
>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
>>> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not
>>> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
>>> delete this message and its attachments.
>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
>>> been modified, changed or falsified.
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> ___ _______________________________________________
>>
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
>> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par
>> erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que
>> les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles
>> d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
>> altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
>> information that may be protected by law; they should not be
>> distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
>> delete this message and its attachments.
>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
>> been modified, changed or falsified.
>> Thank you.
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg