Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> Mon, 05 January 2015 05:27 UTC
Return-Path: <shraddha@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 E509A1A1B9A; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:27:51 -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 wZXD8I0jljMW; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:27:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0758.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::758]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 339791A1B8B; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:27:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1237.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.200.11) by BY1PR0501MB1589.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.203.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.49.12; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 05:27:24 +0000
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.107.139) by BY1PR0501MB1237.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.200.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.49.12; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 05:27:22 +0000
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.107.139]) by BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.107.139]) with mapi id 15.01.0049.002; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 05:27:22 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@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/JgZywgAqQgAB25tA=
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 05:27:21 +0000
Message-ID: <BY1PR0501MB13819827B23C19F8B9333096D5580@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
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:
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.14]
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=shraddha@juniper.net;
x-dmarcaction: None
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(3005003); SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1237; UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0447DB1C71
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(13464003)(51704005)(24454002)(199003)(377454003)(479174004)(189002)(21056001)(101416001)(2201001)(54356999)(50986999)(76176999)(2656002)(87936001)(97736003)(4396001)(20776003)(64706001)(33656002)(76576001)(66066001)(99286002)(105586002)(74316001)(68736005)(40100003)(86362001)(2900100001)(46102003)(2950100001)(122556002)(120916001)(99396003)(102836002)(15975445007)(106356001)(107046002)(19580395003)(19580405001)(77156002)(230783001)(62966003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1237; H:BY1PR0501MB1381.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-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Jan 2015 05:27:21.9304 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY1PR0501MB1237
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1589;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004); SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1589;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1589;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/oHXF66ksAXYp72CofvRxXDlpPZI
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 05:27:52 -0000
Les, I agree with the point you made that the requirement of not protecting certain services can be met today using the LFA-manageability draft. Deploying the solution using LFA manageability requires that the 1. Services be represented by different prefixes 2. Come up with a policy that makes sure no backup path is downloaded for the prefix 3. Configure the policy in each node in the network. 4. Repeat the process whenever a new service with similar characteristic comes up The advantage of having an unprotected path to each node is the ease of deployment. LFA-manageability has its own advantage of fine tuning the backup paths and I am not denying that. I am trying to say that for certain use-cases it is easy to have unprotected paths in the network for each node And use those path for services that need such paths. If someone wants to simply have a unprotected path for certain node and use it for all the services Which don't need protection, that flexibility should be available in the protocol. That is the reason I am saying that we should have "No protection" flag in the prefix-SID. Rgds Shraddha -----Original Message----- From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 3:37 AM To: Pushpasis Sarkar; Shraddha Hegde; 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 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. 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. 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.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 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)