Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag-02 WG acceptance

From: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 16:41:08 +0000

Hi Uma,

Thanks for the support.

As for your comment on considerations for per-AF/per-topolgy tag, we would
like to leave it to the operators to manage the entire node-admin-tag
space in whatever manner they may require.

For MT, operators may want to divide the entire 32-bit integer space into
number of sub-ranges as the number of topologies deployed (one per
topology). And then may sub-divide each of these further for various other
purposes.

Thanks and Regards,
-Pushpasis

On 9/29/14, 11:13 PM, "Uma Chunduri" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Support.
>
>Application of node tags can be very interesting and could be creative to
>exercise different operator policies.
>
>One small comment-
>IMO, granularity of the tag per topology/AF can be useful in MT
>deployments. Authors may  think over on this.
>
>--
>Uma C.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Isis-wg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Hannes
>Gredler
>Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:01 AM
>To: [email-masked] list
>Cc: [email-masked]; Christian Hopps
>Subject: [Isis-wg] draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag-02 WG acceptance
>
>fellow ISIS-WG,
>
>The authors have requested ISIS-WG draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag-02
>as a working group document.
>
>note there has been already a decent level of discussion around
>applicability and use on the OSPF-WG mailing list. please see:
>
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/current/maillist.html
>  grep for 'WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag'
>
>please state support/no-support.
>
>thanks,
>
>hannes & chris
>
>_______________________________________________
>Isis-wg mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg