Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles
Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net> Fri, 21 August 2015 08:29 UTC
Return-Path: <hannes@juniper.net>
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 08A2D1A892A for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_82=0.6, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 2n56RrmU2zvi for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0714.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::714]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ED3A1A8873 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=hannes@juniper.net;
Received: from hannes-mba.local (193.110.55.12) by BN1PR05MB439.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.243.23; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:29:14 +0000
Received: from hannes-mba.local (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by hannes-mba.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35836164B7F3; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:29:01 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:29:01 +0200
From: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
To: "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <bashandy@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20150821082900.GA31181@hannes-mba.local>
References: <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> <55C93C47.9070909@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <55C93C47.9070909@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Originating-IP: [193.110.55.12]
X-ClientProxiedBy: DB5PR03CA0051.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.164.34.19) To BN1PR05MB439.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.22)
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BN1PR05MB439; 2:1aAVdXyz2fqC703OIomCMwaffhTgfzOhqmENzQOlakMBpfAf4zvyiUBp+mAjR4F9NZqJxb6fgH2WXMuuFAoVF16C8Uaj+jGGBpm37E33zZwHcPdIBNMGQPFGFNPVKAbfv9p/FwCJgS9PdG5RTcHr2MU0m8YdC8hPETG60wJQ3Uk=; 3:VKM55PL7dsjmSIyl631vb1wEKhTd24lVny0oKp01JDio4LBJGUXJZ9SrB3CC8rogAH34VqI6EVMwgTOY4bGGlnMbvnW4NvsWEXi4XBlOSDpqfQbvoa96U98f6x8VI1AJ/J9YyJOhrlt1qv/rCMsLrCDGp0UEjD0WE96bmizcGrU=; 25:/j9iXwSjIXm39jjloKvXMy2dF3PX/jnjqxjf3gspBPBbszZgvC87nEOryFIicrUsrEuqlBBuLgRTexqgP/qxm+y0iQOes70CZdK0haTuo3EEkCljjco/0M9MD01veLvEw5NRTO7z4IaN7QPIIsQ3t8eE3gxzxTrMeAGAp8UBr4a2+Q72b3DFejMA/WzOFYDCsh5FNZwTSIrxmwpBLDpJt+w7a59K58m2TRBCJ/CtkAGHaQ1jNGmHKkd2hZCv0Kts
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(42142001); SRVR:BN1PR05MB439;
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BN1PR05MB439; 20: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; 4:qbSKjZ1FFdU2N/feoMW/BCVUdYq8cERpEb+o+T/rY58l34vHPCWAGToKWjsS/B2K2s9Eq3j3/sff8B+L3HTJy3kuMLJ955pyqjqru16N3z7t3fGx2R8YPHCRO9jLZ32Et3qGhzRg/IgbvvzBzTRGGOLsli+LBA9qPbyF3A06dzeg9csmkIWpGUbavp6b4JMFYqOxMuA1NRiPhyqVoQ9n3QpHCcr/WkSyrLEM/4lAj/36lEq4zR87qEf5ZZu04GTbVZXpc0hchgTZYfh9FoSWVi5ZySFHG02JLxFYdNasF7867RzuUvUMzMWWlILvHLZm
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <BN1PR05MB439D8DB864C6DF5EEA9FD70CB650@BN1PR05MB439.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001); SRVR:BN1PR05MB439; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN1PR05MB439;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 067553F396
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(979002)(6009001)(57704003)(189002)(13464003)(377454003)(199003)(24454002)(164054003)(479174004)(5001860100001)(46102003)(105586002)(64706001)(575784001)(23676002)(47776003)(5003600100002)(50466002)(5890100001)(77096005)(5007970100001)(68736005)(15975445007)(2950100001)(77156002)(106356001)(86362001)(92566002)(62966003)(40100003)(5001960100002)(83506001)(76506005)(33656002)(98436002)(93886004)(189998001)(101416001)(230783001)(5001920100001)(122386002)(87976001)(50986999)(5001830100001)(54356999)(66066001)(4001350100001)(110136002)(76176999)(5004730100002)(81156007)(97736004)(19580405001)(4001540100001)(19580395003)(561944003)(122856001)(579124003)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB439; H:hannes-mba.local; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;BN1PR05MB439;23: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
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; BN1PR05MB439; 5:anGa2weu49S6GJhCvdOL4Hb/PxQpUZVnMjGioNpJP3Xscd9PfbQSJNbUgfO9LwOsYS6WnWgILhAoR+UTjqPGJ2D82LN5dChagh4HI7Z57O3I5qcHjAf4xLmNPAcjzTwdW+rxD7JwrysHPhHd/VpVRA==; 24:slqft/86p4Z48jxosXYIthgliztLx1FOe+BFxYfCJlIXXadaTmlCaRzdqfJwATh+ZGCuQl/r7e0GyMtX814BKabnb8ECtbLKfqlou0SFeKQ=; 20:EyKwnr5JLbqrL/dyLYj6mwG8kTh6uk/7jOqMgnVhE91ypl4Gr+5pUo6qN1dqNpLxfkDNbOfC3nPsJ0RxL6SaTA==
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:23
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Aug 2015 08:29:14.0014 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN1PR05MB439
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/r8tVloA1ERgvFnhf1gs5Hio-_ZQ>
Cc: "isis-wg@ietf.org list (isis-wg@ietf.org)" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:29:39 -0000
hi ahmed, did some checking of "LAG-child LSPs" asks among my SP customers and what is not clear to me is: "why do we need IS-IS extensions for this ?" couple of observations: - your proposal of exposing sub-LAG LSPs is valid and there is interest to run OAM traffic on LAG-child links - there is no receive side component in your draft - i.e. IS-IS is used only as a northbound protocol - there is general desire for label-predictability - so most SPs were happy to *statically* allocate a label per LAG child link, such that even no transmit side support is needed. - there are some concerns to bloat the IGP (which does topology discovery) with non routing related functions. so coming back to stephane's argument about "BGP-LS" it seems that this is only relevant to operators which do not want to deploy BGP-LS on routers running LAGs. is that a fair summary ? /hannes On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 05:05:27PM -0700, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) wrote: | 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 |BGP-LS to |L2 bundles as | | | |L2 bundles |advertise L2 |unnumbered | | | | |bundle |interfaces in ISIS | | |-------------------+------------------+-------------+-------------------| | |Scalability |Minimal scale |Minimal scale|Significant scale | | | |overheard (+1) |overhead (+1)|overhead (-1) | | |-------------------+------------------+-------------+-------------------| | |Mandate the |No (+1) |Yes (-1) |No (+1) | | |deployment of a | | | | | |protocol that was | | | | | |not deployed before| | | | | |-------------------+------------------+-------------+-------------------| | |Impact on basic |Minimal (+1) |Minimal (+1) |Significant (-1) | | |routing | | | | | |functionality | | | | | |-------------------+------------------+-------------+-------------------| | |Works for both P2P |Simple (+1) |Simple (+1) |Difficult | | |and LAN | | |(unnumbered not | | | | | |easy with LANs) | | | | | |(-1) | | |-------------------+------------------+-------------+-------------------| | |Using 1 protocol |Yes (+1) |No (-1) |Yes (+1) | | |for diverse | | | | | |functionilities | | | | | |-------------------+------------------+-------------+-------------------| | |Exposing L2 info in|Yes (-1) |Yes (-1) |No (+1) | | |L3 protocol | | | | | |-------------------+------------------+-------------+-------------------| | |Protocol change |Yes (-1) |Yes (-1) |No (+1) | | |-------------------+------------------+-------------+-------------------| | |Risk |Small (Minimal |Medium (Have |Significant (Have | | | |impact on baseline|to deploy |to make sure that | | | |functionality and |BGP-LS |baseline | | | |managements tools |everywhere) |functionality on | | | |while not |(0) |all routers as well| | | |deploying any new | |as management and | | | |protocol) (+1) | |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, [1]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) [[2]mailto:acee@cisco.com] | Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 02:08 | To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Ebben Aries; [3]isis-wg@ietf.org list ([4]isis-wg@ietf.org) | Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles | | Hi Stephane, | | On 8/6/15, 10:31 AM, [5]"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) [[6]mailto:acee@cisco.com] | Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 15:34 | To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Ebben Aries; [7]isis-wg@ietf.org list | ([8]isis-wg@ietf.org) | Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles | | | | On 8/6/15, 9:19 AM, [9]"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) [[10]mailto:acee@cisco.com] | Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 14:53 | To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Ebben Aries; [11]isis-wg@ietf.org list | ([12]isis-wg@ietf.org) | Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles | | Hi Stephane, | | | On 8/6/15, 4:01 AM, [13]"stephane.litkowski@orange.com" | <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> wrote: | | | Hi Acee, | | Some comments inline | | -----Original Message----- | From: Acee Lindem (acee) [[14]mailto:acee@cisco.com] | Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 19:24 | To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Ebben Aries; [15]isis-wg@ietf.org list | ([16]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 [17]stephane.litkowski@orange.com" | [18]<isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of stephane.litkowski@orange.com> | wrote: | | | Hi, | | Pls find some inline comments. | | -----Original Message----- | From: Ebben Aries [[19]mailto:exa@fb.com] | Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 01:39 | To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; [20]isis-wg@ietf.org list | ([21]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, [22]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 | [23]<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 | <[24]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 | <[25]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 | | | [26]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 | [27]Isis-wg@ietf.org | [28]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 | [29]Isis-wg@ietf.org | [30]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 | [31]Isis-wg@ietf.org | [32]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg | | References | | Visible links | 1. mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com | 2. mailto:acee@cisco.com | 3. mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org | 4. mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org | 5. mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com | 6. mailto:acee@cisco.com | 7. mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org | 8. mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org | 9. mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com | 10. mailto:acee@cisco.com | 11. mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org | 12. mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org | 13. mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com | 14. mailto:acee@cisco.com | 15. mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org | 16. mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org | 17. mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com | 18. mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.orgonbehalfofstephane.litkowski@orange.com | 19. mailto:exa@fb.com | 20. mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org | 21. mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org | 22. mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com | 23. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.orange.com/&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=GJQFPrZyyh453ywaGV%2FvoQ%3D%3D%0A&m=xDbMtpjPKPQ26eNh1Ka%2FhnXOqVfqYtZ9MjolqbbcT8U%3D%0A&s=75085ca9001f9c7a24e6f23efb57f50f5d79a97cbadcbfe1ce65082d335dba35 | 24. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://monsi.sso.fran | 25. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://monsi.sso.fran | 26. mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com | 27. mailto:Isis-wg@ietf.org | 28. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www.ietf.org/ma | 29. mailto:Isis-wg@ietf.org | 30. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg | 31. mailto:Isis-wg@ietf.org | 32. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg | _______________________________________________ | Isis-wg mailing list | Isis-wg@ietf.org | https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
- [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles Ebben Aries
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles Hannes Gredler
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles Hannes Gredler
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ginsberg-isis-l2bundles Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)