Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@juniper.net> Mon, 05 January 2015 04:34 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 E42B71A1AC9; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 20:34:30 -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 igQTZ5zmVE98; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 20:34:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0732.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::732]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79A601A1ABC; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 20:34:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.200.139) by BY1PR0501MB1383.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.107.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.49.12; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 04:34:02 +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; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 04:34:02 +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>, Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Thread-Index: AQHQKKDU5a1wzu0ygUyyYMnO+w95zw==
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 04:34:01 +0000
Message-ID: <D0D00E58.1B720%psarkar@juniper.net>
References: <D0CF6C5B.1B6DD%psarkar@juniper.net> <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F4EEA26EF@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F4EEA26EF@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
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: [116.197.184.19]
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:BY1PR0501MB1383;
x-forefront-prvs: 0447DB1C71
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(979002)(6009001)(24454002)(13464003)(479174004)(478694002)(51704005)(189002)(377454003)(199003)(54356999)(99396003)(120916001)(50986999)(76176999)(15975445007)(102836002)(40100003)(31966008)(66066001)(561944003)(2201001)(92566001)(230783001)(2900100001)(101416001)(86362001)(122556002)(64706001)(20776003)(2950100001)(21056001)(68736005)(83506001)(107046002)(99286002)(106116001)(97736003)(36756003)(77156002)(19580395003)(62966003)(19580405001)(2656002)(1941001)(46102003)(105586002)(106356001)(87936001)(4396001)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1383; H:BY1PR0501MB1240.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <3F5D2B1FA412F34BBC6C025407680D6F@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Jan 2015 04:34:01.2809 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY1PR0501MB1383
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/VMfr45n_84t0VEiy6Tvnu0rXG40
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: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 04:34:31 -0000

Hi Les,

Please find comments inline..

Authors, 

Here is my proposal. Please let me know if this sounds reasonable or not.

- A new ŒNo-Potection-Required¹ or ŒNP¹ flag be added to the Prefix-SID
Sub-TLV/TLV. Setting this flag means none of the transit routers should
try to protect this node-segment.
- Let nodes advertise two node-sid-index each (per address-family), one
without and one with ŒNP¹ flag set. For node-sid advertised with ŒNP¹ flag
0, routers same behave the same way as today. But when they receive a
node-sid with ŒNP¹ flag set, they avoid/skip finding a backup for that
segment.
- Finally ingress servers or TE-applications may use these 'node-sids with
NP-flag set¹ for use cases where it is better to drop traffic on topology
outages rather than diverting it to some other paths. For such cases
ingress router or TE-applications should look for node-sids with ŒNP¹ flag
set and not the regular node-sids. For all other normal use
cases(including L3VPN/6VPE etc) traffic should be carried using node-sid
without ŒNP‹flag set.

Thanks and Regards,
-Pushpasis

On 1/5/15, 3:37 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote:

>Pushpasis -
>
>I don't agree.
>
>The use of one node-sid vs another has nothing whatever to do with the
>request Shraddha has made i.e. should we introduce a flag indicating
>whether a particular prefix should be protected or not. A node-sid only
>dictates what (intermediate) node traffic should be sent to - not what
>link(s) are used to reach that node.
[Pushpasis] This is not about which links to take. It is about wether
transit routers should try to protect the node-segment to the this
node-sid or not. I think this opens up a lot many number of possibilities
on the ingress router and TE controller-based applications.

>
>Adjacency-sids have a different semantic - they identify the link over
>which traffic is to be forwarded. Identifying an adjacency-sid as
>unprotected means traffic will NEVER flow over a different link. There is
>no equivalent behavior w a node-sid - which is what this discussion has
>been about.
[Pushpasis] I am not trying to draw a parallel between this new flag and
the ŒB¹ flag in Adj-Sid SubTlv. Like said before

>
>   Les
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:psarkar@juniper.net]
>Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 8:51 AM
>To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Shraddha Hegde; Peter Psenak (ppsenak);
>draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.orgorg;
>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
>
>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.orgtf.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.orgtf.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.orgtf.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
>