Tony,
Thanks for the comments.
Pls see inline for replies...
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:30 AM
To: William Britto A J
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Rajesh M ; Shraddha Hegde
; DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
Subject:
Alvaro -
Thanx for the clarification.
I will address this in the next revision.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Alvaro Retana
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2021 9:10 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps
> ; Dhruv Dhody
> Cc: TEAS WG Chairs ; lsr-...@ietf.org; TEAS WG
On March 3, 2021 at 6:29:28 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote:
Les:
Hi!
...
> Now, can you respond to my comment regarding the lack of clarity in using
> quotes?
Sure.
I guess you mean this comment: "But I have to say that for me as a
reader the use of quotes as you suggest does not aid clarity."
On 04/03/2021 17:54, Robert Raszuk wrote:
So it is undefined in the spec.
All along I was just asking what is your default probing interval.
I thought I have responded to that earlier today, please look at my
first response today.
It can be: 0 ms - means never probe.
one can even
So it is undefined in the spec.
All along I was just asking what is your default probing interval.
It can be: 0 ms - means never probe.
It can be probe every N ms|s|min\hours etc ..means prove every N ms|s|min\h
etc ...
It can also be probe every time after link down -> up event but not more
Chongfeng –
Just to clarify my position…
IMO there is no substantive content in this draft that warrants it becoming an
RFC – Informational track or otherwise. It is simply a set of pointers to other
documents/registries.
If the authors find the content in some way helpful, I think the more
Hi, Peter:
We are also interested the distributed mode deployment. Would you like to
provide more information about the deployment/implementaction and we can learn
what’s the size of network scale and how often the measured value is changed.
Some pointers are also help.
Thanks in advance.
Hi,Les:
My understanding is that
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-lsr-sr-enhanced-vpn/ proposed the
necessary IGP extensions to accomplish more abundant VTN function, while this
adopting draft described how to utilize the existing MT mechanism to achieve
the basic VTN function.
And
Hi Yali,
On 04/03/2021 14:45, wangyali wrote:
Hi Peter,
Please see inline [Yali2]. Thanks a lot.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 6:50 PM
To: wangyali ; Gyan Mishra ; Robert
Raszuk
Cc: Huzhibo ; Aijun Wang ; Tony Li
;
Aijun,
On 04/03/2021 15:23, Aijun Wang wrote:
Hi, Peter:
Whatever the interval is set, I think the measured value is “unpredictable
parameter” and should not be used as the input factors for IGP SPF calculations
by the network devices.
Or else, the overall behavior of the network will be
Hi, Peter:
Whatever the interval is set, I think the measured value is “unpredictable
parameter” and should not be used as the input factors for IGP SPF calculations
by the network devices.
Or else, the overall behavior of the network will be uncontrollable.
For the delay aware application, we
Hi, Yali and Peter:
How about using “MFI-specified context” in stead of “MFI-specified LSDB”?
“MFI-specified context” is subdivided from a single common LSDB within the zero
IS-IS instance.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Mar 4, 2021, at 21:45, wangyali wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Please see
Hi Peter,
Please see inline [Yali2]. Thanks a lot.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 6:50 PM
To: wangyali ; Gyan Mishra ;
Robert Raszuk
Cc: Huzhibo ; Aijun Wang ; Tony Li
; lsr ; Tianran Zhou
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version
On 04/03/2021 14:28, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Is it minimum ever, is it min of the year, month, week, day ... etc
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8570#section-4.2
Peter
Maybe it is just me but in section 4.2 I see NOTHING about how often
that delay should be measured which was the
> > Is it minimum ever, is it min of the year, month, week, day ... etc
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8570#section-4.2
>
> Peter
>
Maybe it is just me but in section 4.2 I see NOTHING about how often that
delay should be measured which was the point above.
Thx,
R.
Hi， Les,
Thanks for the review of this document.
As the current document type is informational, it does not introduce new TLV to
IS-IS. While it describes the mechanisms of using existing TLVs to distribute
the information of SR based VTNs, which can have customized topology and a set
of
On 04/03/2021 12:25, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Ok so there are some agreements. Good.
As to the *minimum* you keep highlighting IMO minimum without the
definition of what time window this minimum is related to is meaningless.
Is it minimum ever, is it min of the year, month, week, day ... etc
Ok so there are some agreements. Good.
As to the *minimum* you keep highlighting IMO minimum without the
definition of what time window this minimum is related to is meaningless.
Is it minimum ever, is it min of the year, month, week, day ... etc
Best
R.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 12:06 Peter Psenak
On 04/03/2021 11:52, Robert Raszuk wrote:
I guess now you are not listening ;)
I am saying it is about finding the right normalization timers and
values which can satisfy the need. And those should reside on the senders.
that's about what tend to agreed on so far.
But that will not address
I guess now you are not listening ;)
I am saying it is about finding the right normalization timers and values
which can satisfy the need. And those should reside on the senders.
That is why I was asking what is there today and so far no one gave precise
answer. You said links don't change delay
Hi Yali,
On 04/03/2021 11:42, wangyali wrote:
Hi Peter,
Please review follows tagged by [Yali].
-Original Message-
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:37 PM
To: wangyali ; Gyan Mishra ; Robert
Raszuk
Cc: Huzhibo ; Aijun Wang ; Tony Li
;
Hi Peter,
Please review follows tagged by [Yali].
-Original Message-
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:37 PM
To: wangyali ; Gyan Mishra ;
Robert Raszuk
Cc: Huzhibo ; Aijun Wang ; Tony Li
; lsr ; Tianran Zhou
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New
Robert,
On 04/03/2021 10:50, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Peter,
Sorry but the draft does not have a disclaimer section which states:
"Extensions defined below are only applicable to networks with not even
a single emulated circuit in the IGP."
> Obviously, if the min delay fluctuates wildly, one
Peter,
Sorry but the draft does not have a disclaimer section which states:
"Extensions defined below are only applicable to networks with not even a
single emulated circuit in the IGP."
> Obviously, if the min delay fluctuates wildly, one can not achieve delay
optimized
> forwarding no matter
Robert,
On 04/03/2021 10:23, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Peter,
Completely disagree.
that's what you seem to be doing from the beginning of this conversation ;)
Real say enterprise networks are being build with emulated circuits
(example VPWS). In one company I was working at it was about 80%
Aijun,
On 04/03/2021 10:16, Aijun Wang wrote:
Hi, Peter:
If we use such unpredicted parameters for the dynamic IGP calculation,
I'm not sure what unpredicted parameters you are talking about.
will the network be operated automatically in non-consistent manner and let the
operator stuck
Peter,
Completely disagree.
Real say enterprise networks are being build with emulated circuits
(example VPWS). In one company I was working at it was about 80% of
emulated links all over the world in their WAN. Yes for me it was a shock
as I did not realize how much this emulated links took
Hi, Peter:
If we use such unpredicted parameters for the dynamic IGP calculation, will the
network be operated automatically in non-consistent manner and let the operator
stuck in a mess, and busy to find which semi static value was changed and
what's it the cause?
Is this the right direction
Robert,
On 03/03/2021 23:54, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi Tarek,
Yes as Tony also just indicated it is completely different game here.
Headend can do whatever it likes.
But I think your point and also what Peter said earlier is to actually
throw the baby with the bath water by suppressing
Robert,
On 03/03/2021 20:57, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Peter,
> that differ by few microsecond
Really you normalize only single digit microseconds ???
What if link delay changes in milliseconds scale ? Do you want to
compute new topology every few milliseconds ?
let me repeat again.
Min
30 matches
Mail list logo
