Acee, I read your comment about elephant flow and added below text in sec 4.1.1.2
“Note that a single elephant flow is normally pinned to a single layer-3 interface. If the single layer-3 link bandwidth is not sufficient for any single elephant flow, the mechanisms to solve this issue are outside the scope of this document” Replace the term “centralized controller” with “PCE” Posting -08 version now. Pls check Rgds Shraddha Juniper Business Use Only From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 12:22 PM To: Acee Lindem <acee.lin...@gmail.com> Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-07 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Acee, Thanks for the review and edits. I have incorporated all edits. Will post -08 when window opens. Pls see inline for replies Juniper Business Use Only Juniper Business Use Only From: Acee Lindem <acee.lin...@gmail.com<mailto:acee.lin...@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 4:16 AM To: Acee Lindem <acee.lin...@gmail.com<mailto:acee.lin...@gmail.com>> Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>; draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-07 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Authors, I support publication of this document but not in its current state. I have the following comments that should be resolved first: 1. "Backward Compatibility" section is missing. This should be straightforward given that an FAD computation only includes nodes supporting that FAD. <SH> OK 2. “Security Considerations” is “TBD”. <SH> ok 3. There is no “Operational Considerations” section. Someone may ask for one. <SH> ok 4. The document alludes to the problem with elephant flows. Yet for “Interface Group Mode”, the aggregate bandwidth for multiple L3 links is used. How would this work when a flow is typically bound to a single L3 interface? <SH> All we are trying to do in this document is to assign metric relative to bandwidth. IGPs cannot do any bandwidth management and path placement and it’s been mentioned in the introduction section clearly. 5. #3 in section 5 is very hard to parse. Possibly split into multiple coherent sentences. <SH> will do Lots of editorial nits - I’m attaching some suggested edits but I’m not sure I got them all. 1. Use “sub-TLV” and “Sub-TLV” consistent with the usage in RFC 9350. I tried to fix these on the fly but it probably still needs work. Basically, it is capitalized when used as part of a proper noun identifying a specific sub-TLV. Also, in section titles and captions. <SH> will do 2. Reference RFC9350 rather than the Flex-Algo draft throughout. <SH> ok 3. I didn’t make the change but I’d use “Layer-2” and “Layer-3” hyphenated. <SH>ok See attached editorial suggestions in the RFC diff. Thanks, Acee > On Feb 19, 2024, at 5:25 PM, Acee Lindem > <acee.lin...@gmail.com<mailto:acee.lin...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > This starts the Working Group Last call for > draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-07. At least some of the flex algorithm > enhancements described in the document have been implemented. > > Please send your support or objection to this before March 5th, 2024. > > Thanks, > Acee > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cv33O23fKbqI5Mibov464lpU2T_xjsvN8M9FRLg5sfwFuc-uvt8zz70GyAVhzS-6Tzg8QoA1XXKadGgo4se8DQ$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Cv33O23fKbqI5Mibov464lpU2T_xjsvN8M9FRLg5sfwFuc-uvt8zz70GyAVhzS-6Tzg8QoA1XXKadGgo4se8DQ$>
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
