, 2024 10:19 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) mailto:jie.d...@huawei.com>>
Cc: Bruno Decraene
mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>>; Les Ginsberg
mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; Yingzhen Qu
mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>; lsr
mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>; lsr-chairs
mailto:lsr-cha...@ie
Hi Bruno, Tony, Les and all,
I fully understand the concern about interoperability, and would support
approaches which can help to improve interoperability.
In addition to making the text more strict by using "MUST", I'd like to mention
other points which can help to mitigate the risk for opera
: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; lsr@ietf.org;
draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo.auth...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-07
Hi Jie,
On 02/04/2024 10:57, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the quick reply.
Do you mean IGP L2
members is required. This document introduces the
ability for IS-IS to advertise the link attributes of Layer 2 (L2) Bundle
Members. “
Best regards,
Jie
From: Peter Psenak
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 4:47 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; lsr@ietf.org;
draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn
Hi Chris,
Sorry for the delayed response. Please see inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Hopps
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 1:08 AM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy)
> Cc: Christian Hopps ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
> ; Dongjie (Jimmy)
> ; lsr@ietf.org;
> d
Hi Les,
Sorry for the delayed response. Please see inline:
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2024 1:01 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
; Dongjie (Jimmy) ;
lsr@ietf.org; draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo.auth...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Comments on
Hi Peter,
Please see inline:
From: Peter Psenak
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 5:39 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Les Ginsberg
(ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org;
draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo.auth...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-07
Hi Jie,
On 21/03/2024
Hi Gyan,
Sorry for the delayed response, please see some replies inline:
From: Gyan Mishra
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 1:04 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy)
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Peter Psenak
; draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo.auth...@ietf.org;
lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on
Hi Peter,
Please see inline:
From: Peter Psenak
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 7:39 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Les Ginsberg
(ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org;
draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo.auth...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-07
Hi Jie,
On 21/03/2024
,
Jie
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 10:36 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; lsr@ietf.org;
draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo.auth...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-07
Jie -
Thanx for the quick response and confirming that my
Hi Ketan,
Thanks for sharing the use cases of this new flag. It would be helpful if some
brief description could be added to the document.
Best regards,
Jie
From: Ketan Talaulikar
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 1:18 AM
To: Acee Lindem
Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; lsr ;
draft-chen-lsr-anycast-f
Hi Les,
Thanks for the review and comments.
Please see some replies inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 7:32 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org; draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo.auth...@ietf.org
> Subject: Comments on draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr
Hi authors,
I just read this document. Maybe I didn't follow the previous discussion, but
it seems in the current version it does not describe how this newly defined
flag would be used by the receiving IGP nodes?
Best regards,
Jie
-Original Message-
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
Hi Acee and Liyan,
Please see some replies inline with [Jie] :
From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2024 5:37 AM
To: Liyan Gong mailto:gongli...@chinamobile.com>>
Cc: Gyan Mishra mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>>; Dongjie
(Jimmy) mailto:jie.d..
[mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:30 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Yongqing Zhu
; Huzhibo
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-07.txt
A new version of Internet-Draft draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-07.txt has
been successfully submitted
Hi Yingzhen,
I’ve read the latest version of this document and support its adoption. It is
a useful feature in general to exclude some of the links from SPF computation.
I also have some comments for the authors to consider, they can be solved after
the adoption.
1. I’m not sure the pu
Hi Acee and Chongfeng,
First of all, as a coauthor I support to progress this document to publication.
Please see some replies inline:
发件人：Chongfeng Xie
收件人：Acee Lindem ;lsr ;teas
;spring
时 间：2024-01-20 10:44:46
主 题：Re: [Lsr] [spring] Shepherd's Review of "Applicability of IS-IS
Multi-Topol
Hi Acee,
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this document.
Best regards,
Jie
> -Original Message-
> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 6:43 AM
> To: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn...@ietf.org
> Cc: Lsr
> Subject: IPR Poll for WG Last Ca
Hi authors,
I’ve read both the draft and the recent discussion on the list. IMO Bruno’s
concern is reasonable.
As MP-TLV is not the default behavior for all TLVs specified in existing RFCs,
operator has to be careful when enabling the MP-TLV behavior for existing TLVs,
especially for TLVs whic
Robert,
We are on the same page. What I said was “summarize the common parts, and
highlight their differences”.
-Jie
From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 5:36 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy)
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Huzhibo
; Peter Psenak (ppsenak
Hi Les and Robert,
Please see some comments inline:
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 4:19 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Huzhibo ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
; linchangwang ; Acee Lindem
; lsr ;
draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-pr
Hi Krzysztof,
If my understanding is correct, you and Louis are considering about two
separate optimizations:
1. Allowing multiple “Virtual Flex-Algos” to share the SPF calculation of
one “legacy” Flex-Algo.
This can be addressed by the mechanisms described in section 2 of
https://dat
Support.
It provides necessary OSPF extensions for SRv6 which is equivalent to the IS-IS
SRv6 extensions.
Best regards,
Jie
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2022 1:17 AM
To: lsr
Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org
S
Hi authors, WG,
I also have some comments which aligns with Ketan’s first and third points as
below:
Firstly, both RFC 5305 and 5308 say that:
“If a prefix is advertised with a metric larger then MAX_PATH_METRIC (call it
infinite metric), this prefix MUST NOT be considered during the normal SP
: Thursday, May 19, 2022 12:55 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy)
Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) ;
adr...@olddog.co.uk; draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexa...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] A review of draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-04
Hi Jie
Very welcome!
I was actually referring to “SR” Flex Algo not IP
we could
have further discussion about whether and how IP Flex-Algo can be used for VTN
or NRP.
Best regards,
Jie
From: Gyan Mishra [mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 12:51 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy)
Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk; draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexa...@ietf.org
Hi Adrian,
Thanks a lot for your detailed review. All your comments and suggestions look
good and we will produce a new revision to incorporate them.
And please see replies to some points inline:
Best regards,
Jie
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk
Hi Ketan, Peter,
I’ve just finished reading this thread, and think Ketan’s concerns make sense.
Although the current Flex-Algo Definition is independent of the data plane
encapsulation, I’m not sure if there is real benefit to use the same FAD with
different data plane participation to cut out
Hi Robert,
How about call them different “data plane encapsulations”?
Best regards,
Jie
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 9:51 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar ;
draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexa...@ietf.org; Peter Pse
Hi,
I've read this document and support its adoption.
My understanding of this document is that it aims to identify a link attached
to an IGP node, while the link itself does not run IGP. Some attributes of such
link may be used in determining the path to an external network via that link.
Thi
Hi,
I share similar opinion with Gunter.
ASLA provides the flexibility to define the set of applications which can use a
specific type of link attribute, it also allows to customize the attribute
value for each application.
As the generic metric mechanism will be used to define different typ
I support the adoption of these two documents.
Best regards,
Jie
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 6:48 PM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; cho...@chopps.org
> Subject
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 9:37 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency
SID Advertisement"
Hi Jimmy
Please see my commen
Hi Gyan,
Please see some comments inline:
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 1:05 PM
To: Christian Hopps
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency
SID Advertisement"
I support WG ad
Hi PSF,
Please see inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: peng.sha...@zte.com.cn [mailto:peng.sha...@zte.com.cn]
> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 9:41 AM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy)
> Cc: cho...@chopps.org; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re:[Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorith
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your reply. Please see inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 4:10 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Christian Hopps
> ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for &quo
behavior.
So could you reply to the comments in my previous mail?
Best regards,
Jie
> -Original Message-
> From: peng.sha...@zte.com.cn [mailto:peng.sha...@zte.com.cn]
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 12:00 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy)
> Cc: cho...@chopps.org; lsr@ietf.org
> Sub
Hi,
I don't support the adoption of this document.
It seems this document aims to introduce per Flex-Algo Adj-SID to SR-MPLS, its
typical use case is to provide protection path with Flex-Algo constraints for
Adj-SID of a particular Flex-Algo, which is described in the case 3 of section
3.
H
is more like a mechanism of relative static network planning, without
considering the dynamics of the link bandwidth utilization.
I don't have further questions.
Best regards,
Jie
From: Shraddha Hegde [mailto:shrad...@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 6:42 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ;
Hi Shraddha,
Thanks for your reply. Please see further inline:
From: Shraddha Hegde [mailto:shrad...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 1:18 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) mailto:jie.d...@huawei.com>>; Acee
Lindem (acee)
mailto:acee=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>>;
lsr@ietf.org<mail
Thanks to Peter for his response to my third comment.
Could the authors also reply to the other comments (1, 2, 4) in the below mail?
Many thanks.
Best regards,
Jie
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dongjie (Jimmy)
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 3:52 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your reply, please see inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 5:12 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> ; lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-...@ietf.org
&
Hi authors,
I’ve read the latest version of this document and have the following comments:
1. Is the generic metric type applicable to applications other than
Flex-Algo? If so, it is better to make this clear in the document, or perhaps
it may be defined separately from the Flex-Algo spe
Hi Acee,
I agree with what Chongfeng said about VTN. It refers to a virtual underlay
network with specific topology and resource attributes, and the topology of
VTNs can be specified using multi-topology. It is important to understand the
difference between a VTN and a logical network topology.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your comments. Please see some replies inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 5:46 PM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo
>
> Dear authors,
>
peng.sha...@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.sha...@zte.com.cn>
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 10:52 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) mailto:jie.d...@huawei.com>>
Cc: hayabusa...@gmail.com<mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com>;
rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>;
ts...@juniper.net<mailto:ts.
-bestbar-lsr-spring-sa could happen in a separate thread.
Best regards,
Jie
From: Tarek Saad [mailto:ts...@juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 10:44 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Gyan Mishra ;
Tony Przygienda
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Chongfeng
Xie ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; Robert
Raszuk ; lsr
Hi Gyan,
Thanks for your comments.
As you mentioned, both MT and MI can provide separate topologies and the
topology based computation, and MI can provide separate LSDBs at some
additional cost (separate adjacencies, etc.). In this document, the resource of
VTN mainly refers to the forwarding
Hi Robert,
In my interpretation, you also think this document is useful to the operators.
This document does not introduce new encodings to IS-IS, while it provides
information which was not covered explicitly in the specifications of the
protocol encodings. For example, with the VTN mechanism,
Hi,
Support the adoption as a coauthor.
This document describes a practical mechanism to use MT together with segment
routing to build SR based VTNs.
Best regards,
Jie
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:28 AM
To: lsr@ietf.or
Hi,
I’m not aware of any relevant IPR.
Best regards,
Jie
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:35 AM
To: draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vrn...@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] IPR Poll for "Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segm
Hi Robert,
I have similar question as yours: whether the proposed mechanism is based on
static or dynamic bandwidth/latency metric?
If static, it is easy for Flex-Algo based distributed computation, while the
result may not be that helpful, as Tony said, all traffic may be steered to the
same
Hi Robert,
Please see inline:
From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net]
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 5:16 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy)
Cc: Peter Psenak ; Acee Lindem (acee)
; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms
(Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks&quo
Hi Peter,
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 9:22 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> ; lsr
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms
> (Flex-Algorithm)
Hi Peter,
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 5:05 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> ; lsr
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms
> (Flex-Algorithm)
Hi Peter,
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 9:06 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> ; lsr
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms
> (Flex-Algorith
]
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 6:46 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
; lsr
Subject: RE: WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In
IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01
IP Algorithm SUBTLV indicate the participation for particular flex alg
Hi Peter,
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 6:45 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> ; lsr
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms
> (Flex-Algorith
Hi authors,
Here is one comment following the previous discussion on the mail list and the
IETF meeting.
The IP Algorithm TLV is defined to advertise the IP Flex-Algorithm
participation information, there is no separate TLV for IPv4 or IPv6 Flex-Algo
participation. If some nodes participate in
Hi Acee,
One small nit about the minutes for the first topic:
Peter: I commented earlier. The way the total constaints are being
used. Basically a bundle must advertise the summary of all
the included affinities of the individual members, can't
use an exclude
...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>
mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>>
发送时间: 2020年9月11日 17:11
收件人: Dongjie (Jimmy) mailto:jie.d...@huawei.com>>;
Yongqing Zhu mailto:zhu...@chinatelecom.cn>>; Huzhibo
mailto:huzh...@huawei.com>>
主题: New Version Notification
Hi Chris,
I support the publication of this document, and as co-author I am not aware of
any undisclosed IPR.
Best regards,
Jie
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:15 PM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc
Hi Robert and Peter,
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 7:55 PM
> To: Robert Raszuk
> Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Gyan Mishra
> ; Ron Bonica ; lsr@ietf.org;
> Jeff Tantsura ; Yingzhe
Hi Peter,
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 4:53 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Ron Bonica
> ; Yingzhen Qu ; Gyan
> Mishra
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your reply. Please see further inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2020 4:39 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Ron Bonica
> ; Yingzhen Qu ; Gyan
> Mishra
> C
ctober 11, 2020 3:14 AM
> To: Ron Bonica
> Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Peter Psenak
> ; Yingzhen Qu ; Gyan
> Mishra ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for
> draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt
>
> Jie,
>
> The scoop is different, for SR data pla
Hi Ron,
Please see inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net]
> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 8:48 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Peter Psenak
> ; Yingzhen Qu ; Gyan
> Mishra
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura
> Subject: R
-128 to IP
address? If so, how could this node know the binding of FA to different data
planes on other nodes?
Best regards,
Jie
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 11:58 PM
> To: Dongjie (
Hi Ron,
Thanks for explaining the difference between IP Flex-Algo and SR Flex-algo. As
you said, the major difference is the data plane.
If my understanding is correct, for one Flex-Algo to be used correctly, the set
of nodes need to apply consistent constraints in computation, and bind the FA
Hi,
While it is possible to define algorithm-specific IP reachability TLVs to
advertise IP Prefixes associated with different algorithms, this would
introduce several new IS-IS top TLVs. One quick question is: can similar
function be provided with extensions to existing IP reachability TLVs and
Hi Peter,
Please see some replies inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 6:18 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; zhu...@chinatelecom.cn;
> lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] 回复: New Version Notificati
sis-sr-vtn-flexalgo. This
> document specifies a mechanism to use Flex-Algo together with small extensions
> to IS-IS L2 bundle to distribute the topology and resource attribute of SR
> based
> VTN. Your review and comments are appreciated.
> > B.R.
> > Zhu Yongqing
&g
I support the adoption of this document.
Best regards,
Jie
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:17 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone" -
draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt
Bas
Hi Les,
Please see my reply inline:
-Original Message-
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 12:17 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Peter Psenak
; xie...@chinatelecom.cn; lsr
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment
[mailto:rob...@raszuk.net]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 6:21 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy)
Cc: peng.sha...@zte.com.cn; Aijun Wang ;
xie...@chinatelecom.cn; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing
basedVirtual Transport Network
Hi,
Out of pure curiosity here
multiple times in multiple TLV
225?
Best regards,
Jie
From: Tony Przygienda [mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 12:29 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Aijun Wang ; Peter Psenak
; peng.sha...@zte.com.cn; Dongjie (Jimmy)
; xie...@chinatelecom.cn; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; lsr
Hi Les,
Thanks for your review and comments.
Please see my replies inline with [Jie]:
-Original Message-
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 3:06 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Peter Psenak
; xie...@chinatelecom.cn; lsr
Subject: RE: [Lsr
, March 28, 2020 1:12 AM
To: Peter Psenak ; Dongjie (Jimmy)
; xie...@chinatelecom.cn; lsr
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based
Virtual Transport Network
Jie -
The registry clearly indicates the set of specifications - and does so on a per
sub-TLV basis
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your reply, please see inline with [Jie 3]:
-Original Message-
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 11:45 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; xie...@chinatelecom.cn; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment
March 27, 2020 4:11 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; xie...@chinatelecom.cn; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based
Virtual Transport Network
Hi Dongjie,
On 27/03/2020 07:56, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> You missed some of my comments in
gards,
Jie
-Original Message-
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 12:05 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Peter Psenak
; xie...@chinatelecom.cn; lsr
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based
Virtual Transport Network
Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 7:03 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; xie...@chinatelecom.cn; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based
Virtual Transport Network
Hi Dongjie,
On 26/03/2020 11:57, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your comments.
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 5:23 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; xie...@chinatelecom.cn; lsr
>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Seg
Hi Peter,
As described in the abstract, the purpose of this draft is to define a
simplified control plane mechanism to build SR based Virtual Transport Network
(VTN), it is based on the combination of IS-IS Multi-Topology with other IS-IS
extensions, e.g. the extensions for TE, SR and L2 bundl
I support progressing this draft.
Best regards,
Jie
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 8:15 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr-...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ; Acee Lindem
> (acee)
> Subject: [Lsr] W
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your reply. Please see inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 5:08 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ;
> li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com; Chr
Hi Ketan,
I agree the text proposed by Acee is better. In the flex-algo draft, there is
no description of "specific algorithm topologies". OTOH, Flex-algo can specify
the constraints on particular topologies.
Best regards,
Jie
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.
Hi Peter,
Please see some comments inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 1:24 AM
> To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> ; li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com; Christian Hopps
> ; lsr
> Cc: ls
Support the adoption of this draft.
Best regards,
Jie
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2019 5:50 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Call for "IS-IS Extensions to Support
Routing over IPv6 Dataplane" - draft-bas
Yes, I support the adoption.
Best regards,
Jie
发件人: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem (acee)
发送时间: 2019年2月13日 21:26
收件人: lsr@ietf.org
主题: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix
Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01
This begins a two
+1.
Support to start the adoption poll on both drafts.
-Jie
> -邮件原件-
> 发件人: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Aijun Wang
> 发送时间: 2019年2月14日 10:38
> 收件人: 'Christian Hopps' ; lsr@ietf.org
> 抄送: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org
> 主题: [Lsr] 答复: WG Adoption Call for draft-li-lsr-dyna
Hi Acee,
I'm not aware of any IPR other than the one referenced below.
Best regards,
Jie
发件人：Acee Lindem (acee)
收件人：Aijun Wang
;draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-...@ietf.org
抄 送：lsr@ietf.org
时间：2019-02-13 10:07:46
主 题：Re: 答复: [Lsr] IPR Poll on "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" -
d
Support moving forward with the centralized and distributed solutions specified
in separated drafts. As discussed in previous mails, the procedure and protocol
extensions needed for the two modes could be different, and a particular
network may only want to use one mode.
As for the centralized
Hi Les,
Thanks for the summary and citations.
To my understanding, although DSCP based steering could be used in
multi-topology scenarios, such usage is not defined in IETF specifications.
Actually there can be many ways of choosing which topology is used for the
forwarding of a particular pa
Agreed, DSCP was designed for DiffServ QoS marking to differentiate a limited
number of service classes, it may not be suitable for non-Diffserv QoS
scenarios.
Best regards,
Jie
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 4:15 PM
To: Rob
jun Wang ; 'Rob Shakir'
>
> Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; cho...@chopps.org; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: 答复: [Lsr] 答复: 答复: Regarding OSPF extension for inter-area
> topology retrieval
>
> Hi Ketan,
>
> On 7/24/18, 7:44 AM, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" wrote:
&
FYI we have submitted a draft on the IGP extensions for SR based enhanced VPN.
Comments are welcome.
Best regards,
Jie
-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 12:06 AM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Subject: I-D Actio
Hi Les,
Thanks for your comments and analysis. Please see my replies inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2018 1:44 AM
> To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Dongjie (Jimmy)
> ; Acee Lindem (acee)
t; To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Dongjie (Jimmy)
> ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for Flex Algorithm Drafts
>
> Hi Jie, Peter,
>
> Another difference with Multiple Topology Router (MTR) is that it implies the
> abstraction of a RIB per topology
Hi Peter,
Please see inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 5:34 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for Fle
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
