Hi Aijun, > I support the adoption of the “FAD constraint sub-TLV” part(Section 3), but > not support the introduce of “Bandwidth Metric Advertisement” part (Section > 4) and other related parts.
As I understand it, we don’t get a line item veto, so I don’t know how the chairs will take this. > With the introduce of additional constraint information, the problem > described in “Introduction” part(Section 1) can be solved. Please say more. Claims without rationale are not reasoning. > The usage of bandwidth metric in large network is not feasible. Ditto. > And, would you like to explain more for the following statements(in Section > 4.1.1.2) > “In the interface group mode, every node MUST identify the set of > parallel links between a pair of nodes based on IGP link > advertisements and MUST consider cumulative bandwidth of the parallel > links while arriving at the metric of each link.” > based on example described in Figure 7? The paragraph immediately above explains exactly that. B->C has two parallel 10Gbps links, so it should be considered to be 20Gbps. > How the cumulative bandwidth will be used to achieve the result that traffic > from B to D will prefer B-C-F-D, not B-E-D? B-C-F-D is 20Gbps. B-E-D is 10Gbps. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
