Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02

Hi All, I support the WG adoption. Best Regards, Zhenbin (Robin) -- 李振斌 Li Zhenbin Mobile: +86-13651017745/+968-91797068 Email: lizhen...@huawei.com 发件人：Christian Hopps 收件人：lsr 抄 送：lsr-ads ;Christian Hopps

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

Hi All, I support the WG adoption. Best Regards, Zhenbin (Robin) -- 李振斌 Li Zhenbin Mobile: +86-13651017745/+968-91797068 Email: lizhen...@huawei.com 发件人：Acee Lindem (acee) 收件人：lsr 抄 

Re: [Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro – FWIW, I agree w John here. There are many examples – to cite a few: Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 (Extended IS reachability, IS Neighbor Attribute, L2 Bundle Member Attributes, inter-AS reachability information, MT-ISN, and MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLVs) … Reference

Re: [Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)

On May 13, 2021, at 1:20 PM, Alvaro Retana mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: This documents updates RFC 7370 by modifying an existing registry. Also, this doesn’t seem to me like an update to RFC 7370. It’s normal for an RFC to update an IANA registry, without saying it updates a

Re: [Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)

On May 13, 2021 at 11:44:44 AM, John Scudder wrote: John: Hi! Thanks for the review! Just replying to one of your comments: ... >    This documents updates RFC 7370 by modifying an existing registry. > > Also, this doesn’t seem to me like an update to RFC 7370. It’s normal for an > RFC to

[Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

Support Juniper Business Use Only From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 5:09 PM To: lsr@ietf.org Cc: draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" -

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

Support as co-author. I am not aware of any IPR on this draft. Tony > On May 12, 2021, at 2:09 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > Esteemed Members of the LSR WG, > > This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft: > >

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

Hi Peng shaofu, As per the draft, if automatic metric calculation with reference bandwidth method is used to calculate the metric Then as per your example s->D path will be chosen since metric is 10. Lets say operator wants to choose S->X1->X2--->X10->D path then operator can manually assign

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

Hi Acee, I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. thanks, Peter On 12/05/2021 23:09, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Esteemed Members of the LSR WG, This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con/

Re: [Lsr] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)

Hi Martin, On 12/05/2021 19:31, Martin Duke via Datatracker wrote: Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

Sorry for spelling mistakens in the previous email. updated text: Hi WG, I have a little doubt about the scheme described in this document. See the following example: S X1 - X2 ... ... - X10 - D

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

Hi WG, I have a little doubt about the scheme described in this document. See the following example: S X1 - X2 ... ... - X10 - D \--/ Suppose the links in S---X1---X2...---D have the same bandwidth 10G,

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

I support WG Adoption. Kind Regards Gyan On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:33 AM Shraddha Hegde wrote: > I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. > > > > Rgds > > Shraddha > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) > *Sent:* Thursday, May 13, 2021 2:39 AM > *To:*

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Rgds Shraddha Juniper Business Use Only From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 2:39 AM To: lsr@ietf.org Cc: draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org Subject: LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay,

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

Yes/support Regards, Jeff > On May 12, 2021, at 15:14, Acee Lindem (acee) > wrote: > >  > Esteemed Members of the LSR WG, > > This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con/ > > Please