Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@juniper.net> Sun, 04 January 2015 16:51 UTC
Return-Path: <psarkar@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7793E1A8785; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 08:51:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 78QCKsHGeCoO; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 08:51:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0796.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::796]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 188221A8767; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 08:51:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.200.139) by BY1PR0501MB1382.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.107.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.49.12; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 16:51:08 +0000
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.200.139]) by BY1PR0501MB1240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.200.139]) with mapi id 15.01.0049.002; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 16:51:08 +0000
From: Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@juniper.net>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Thread-Index: AQHQKD6iXwJtxV0x9USUyWdQCc/JgQ==
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:51:07 +0000
Message-ID: <D0CF6C5B.1B6DD%psarkar@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.14]
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=psarkar@juniper.net;
x-dmarcaction: None
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3005003);SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1382;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1382;
x-forefront-prvs: 0446F0FCE1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(479174004)(199003)(189002)(377454003)(51704005)(13464003)(24454002)(77156002)(62966003)(87936001)(105586002)(97736003)(50986999)(86362001)(230783001)(2656002)(36756003)(122556002)(2201001)(19580395003)(54356999)(4396001)(120916001)(46102003)(21056001)(101416001)(68736005)(99286002)(20776003)(64706001)(2900100001)(15975445007)(107046002)(66066001)(106116001)(106356001)(40100003)(83506001)(19580405001)(102836002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1382; H:BY1PR0501MB1240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <9731041E0A4A864D88C80E70BE6C3C7B@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Jan 2015 16:51:07.1423 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY1PR0501MB1382
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/OHliFd4jGUFvtX729hDbIdSq5HM
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:51:36 -0000
Hi Les, I think the requirement Shraddha is referring is about the choice of exact node-sid to use while constructing the label-stack for a explicit-LSP on the ingress router, which will be typically done after running some CSPF on the SPRING topology. And not the IGP on ingress or transit routers. Thanks -Pushpasis On 1/3/15, 3:10 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote: >Shraddha - > >IGPs today do NOT perform constraint based SPFs - so I don't know why you >believe that the primary SPF will meet a set of constraints that an LFA >calculation will not. In fact , it is the opposite which is true because >implementations today do support preferences in choosing LFAs based on >various configured policy - something which is NOT done for primary SPF. > >If you want a certain class of traffic to avoid a subset of the links in >the topology then you need to have a way of identifying the links (NOT >the node addresses) and a way of calculating a path which only uses the >links which meet the constraints of that class of service. Identifying a >particular prefix as protected or unprotected won't achieve that. > > Les > >-----Original Message----- >From: Shraddha Hegde [mailto:shraddha@juniper.net] >Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 10:54 AM >To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Peter Psenak (ppsenak); >draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; >draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org >Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding >draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions > >Hi Les/Peter, > > When reconvergence happens, the primary path will be calculated >based on all constriants. >This is not true with the protection path.Protection path is calculated >locally (LFA/RLFA) and does not consider the characteristics of the >services running on that path. >It's easier for some services to pick the unprotected path when the >nature of the service is that it can be restarted when there is a >disconnection. > >Rgds >Shraddha >-----Original Message----- >From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com] >Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 10:06 PM >To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak); Shraddha Hegde; >draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; >draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org >Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding >draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions > >Peter - > >The requirement Shraddha specified was to not allow a particular class of >service ("heavy bandwidth services" was the example provided) to use >certain links in the topology. My point is that advertising a flag for a >given prefix which says "do not calculate a repair path for this prefix" >does not help achieve this. Once the network reconverges following the >failure of one of the links on which "heavy bandwidth services" is >allowed/preferred it is quite likely that the new best path will be over >a link on which "heavy bandwidth services" is NOT allowed/preferred. This >will happen whether you have the new flag or not - so the flag will have >no lasting effect. It would only affect traffic flow during the brief >period during which the network is reconverging. > >I think you and I are actually in agreement - I am simply sending a >stronger negative message - not only do I think the flag is not useful - >I think it does not achieve the goal Shraddha has in mind. > > Les > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) >Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 12:18 AM >To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Shraddha Hegde; >draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; >draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org >Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding >draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions > >Hi Les, > >I believe the idea is not to exclude any particular link, it's actually >much simpler - do not calculate backup for the prefix if the flag is set. > >I'm still not quite sure how useful above is, but technically it is >possible. > >thanks, >Peter > >On 12/30/14 17:22 , Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: >> Shraddha - >> >> When performing a best path calculation whether a given link is in the >>set of best paths (to be protectedED) or not (could be used as a >>protectING path) is a function of the topology - not the link. If there >>is a topology change it is quite likely that a given link will change >>from being a protectED link to being a protectING link (or vice versa). >>So what you propose regarding node-SIDs would not work. >> >> In the use case you mention below if you don't want a certain class of >>traffic to flow on a given link it requires a link attribute which is >>persistent across topology changes. There are ways to do that - using >>Adj-SIDs is one of them. But using node-SIDs in the way you propose is >>NOT. >> >> Les >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde >> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 10:12 PM >> To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak); >> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; >> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org >> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding >> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions >> >> Peter, >> >>> The requirement here is to get an un-protected path for services which >>>do not want to divert the traffic on protected path in any case. >> >>> can you give an example of such a service and a reasoning why such >>>service would want to avoid local protection along the path? >> >> Heavy bandwidth services are potential candidates. The network is well >>planned and well provisioned for primary path but same is not true for >>backup paths. >> Diverting heavy bandwidth services along protection path can disrupt >>the other services on that path, they are better-off un-protected so >>that an event in the network Would result in disconnection and a retry >>for such services. >> >> Rgds >> Shraddha >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] >> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 4:35 PM >> To: Shraddha Hegde; >> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; >> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org >> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding >> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions >> >> Shraddha, >> >> On 12/29/14 10:06 , Shraddha Hegde wrote: >>> Peter, >>> >>> The requirement here is to get an un-protected path for services which >>>do not want to divert the traffic on protected path in any case. >> >> can you give an example of such a service and a reasoning why such >>service would want to avoid local protection along the path? >> >> thanks, >> Peter >> >>> So when the originator of node-sid signals un-protected path >>>requirement, there is always an unprotected path. >>> >>> Regarding the protected path, it is the default behavior as it exists >>>today. You get protection if it's available otherwise you don't get >>>protection. >>> >>> In fact, you can have the new flag to say "NP flag" meaning >>>non-protected flag which can be set for the unprotected path. >>> By default it remains off and gives the behavior as it exists today. >>> >>> >>> Rgds >>> Shraddha >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] >>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 2:26 PM >>> To: Shraddha Hegde; >>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; >>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org >>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding >>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions >>> >>> Shraddha, >>> >>> I do not see how an originator of the node-sid can mandate a >>>protection for the prefix on other routers. What if there is no backup >>>available on a certain node along the path? >>> >>> The parallel with the B-flag in adj-sids is not right - in case of >>>adj-sid the originator has the knowledge about the local adjacency >>>protection and as such can signal it it it's LSA. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> On 12/29/14 09:47 , Shraddha Hegde wrote: >>>> Peter, >>>> >>>> >>>> Pls see inline. >>>> >>>> Rgds >>>> Shraddha >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 2:02 PM >>>> To: Shraddha Hegde; >>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; >>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org >>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding >>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions >>>> >>>> Shraddha, >>>> >>>> I do not see how an originator can set any flag regarding the >>>>protection of the locally attached prefix. >>>> <Shraddha> The originator advertises 2 node-sids. One with p flag set >>>>and the other without the p-flag set. >>>> >>>> It's all the routers on the path towards such prefix that need to >>>>deal with the protection. >>>> <Shraddha> The receiving nodes will download protected path for the >>>> node-sid with p-flag set and download Unprotected path for the >>>>node-sid with p-flag unset. >>>> >>>> Signaling anything from the originator seems useless. >>>> <Shraddha> For node-sids it's the others who need to build the >>>>forwarding plane but it's only the originator who can signal which of >>>> Sid need to be built with protection and >>>>which not. Other routers on the path cannot signal this information. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> With this you have two paths for the node. One is protected and the >>>>other is unprotected. This meets the requirement of having an >>>>un-protected path. >>>> >>>> It's very much in parallel to B-flag in adj-sids. It is similar to >>>> advertising multiple adj-sids one with B-flag on and other with >>>>b-flag off , to get protected and unprotected Adj-sids. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> On 12/29/14 09:26 , Shraddha Hegde wrote: >>>>> Yes.You are right. >>>>> >>>>> Lets say a prefix sid has a flag "p flag". If this is on it means >>>>>build a path and provide protection. >>>>> If this is off it means build a path with no protection. >>>>> The receivers of the prefix-sid will build forwarding plane based on >>>>>this flag. >>>>> >>>>> The applications building the paths will either use prefix-sids with >>>>>p flag on or off based on the need of the service. >>>>> Rgds >>>>> Shraddha >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] >>>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:49 PM >>>>> To: Shraddha Hegde; >>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; >>>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org >>>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding >>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions >>>>> >>>>> Shraddha, >>>>> >>>>> the problem is that the node that is advertising the node-sid can >>>>>not advertise any data regarding the protection of such prefix, >>>>>because the prefix is locally attached. >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> On 12/29/14 09:15 , Shraddha Hegde wrote: >>>>>> Peter, >>>>>> >>>>>> If there is a service which has to use un-protected path and while >>>>>> building such a path if the node-sids Need to be used (one reason >>>>>> could be label stack compression) , then there has to be >>>>>>unprotected node-sid that this service can make use of. >>>>>> >>>>>> Prefix -sids could also be used to represent different service >>>>>> endpoints which makes it even more relevant to have A means of >>>>>>representing unprotected paths. >>>>>> >>>>>> Would be good to hear from others on this, especially operators. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rgds >>>>>> Shraddha >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:35 PM >>>>>> To: Shraddha Hegde; >>>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; >>>>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org >>>>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding >>>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions >>>>>> >>>>>> Shraddha, >>>>>> >>>>>> node-SID is advertised by the router for the prefix that is >>>>>>directly attached to it. Protection for such local prefix does not >>>>>>mean much. >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks, >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/24/14 11:57 , Shraddha Hegde wrote: >>>>>>> Authors, >>>>>>> We have a "backup flag" in adjacency sid to indicate whether the >>>>>>> label is protected or not. >>>>>>> Similarly. I think we need a flag in prefix-sid as well to >>>>>>> indicate whether the node-sid is to be protected or not. >>>>>>> Any thoughts on this? >>>>>>> Rgds >>>>>>> Shraddha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Isis-wg mailing list >>>>>>> Isis-wg@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>> >>> . >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> . >> > >_______________________________________________ >OSPF mailing list >OSPF@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
- [OSPF] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-rou… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Rob Shakir
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Rob Shakir
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Rob Shakir
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Mitchell Erblich
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Rob Shakir
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… bruno.decraene
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… bruno.decraene
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Henderickx, Wim (Wim)