Hi Tony, Aijun, From: Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com> on behalf of Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> Date: Friday, May 21, 2021 at 11:29 AM To: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> Cc: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>, lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, "draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org" <draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02
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. As WG chair, I don’t see that Aijun’s concerns would prevent WG adoption. The draft has plenty of support. The discussion can continue after adoption. Thanks, Acee 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
