Searching the draft there are actually a lot of “Strict-Mode for BFD” w/o
“OSPF” preceding it.
I agree w Acee’s suggestion – always use “OSPF BFD Strict-Mode”.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 9:57 AM
To: Ketan Talaulikar
Cc: lsr@ietf.org;
> I have stated that “IF” additional functionality is required from BFD
No one says so,
[LES:] Good. Can we end this thread then?
[
Les
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
, January 31, 2022 11:28 AM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: Ketan Talaulikar ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-m...@ietf.org; Acee Lindem
(acee) ; Albert Fu ; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Strict-Mode for BFD" -
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 6:59 AM
To: Albert Fu ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; Ketan Talaulikar
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ;
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-m...@ietf.org; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Strict-Mode for BFD" -
draft-ietf-ls
adjacency will not come up either – which is exactly
the behavior that is desired.
Les
From: Albert Fu (BLOOMBERG/ 120 PARK)
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 6:50 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; ketant.i...@gmail.com;
rob...@raszuk.net
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ;
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-m
:05 AM
To: Ketan Talaulikar
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
; draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-m...@ietf.org; Albert Fu
; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Strict-Mode for BFD" -
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-04
Hi Ketan,
I would like to
Robert -
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 12:20 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Ketan Talaulikar
; draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-m...@ietf.org; Albert
Fu ; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Strict-Mode for BFD" -
Robert –
It is good that you take an active interest in this technology – but I think
the suggestions you are making should not be targeted at IGP use of BFD.
Discussion of how to make BFD failure detection more robust belongs in the BFD
WG – and – as you know – that WG has taken an interest
I strongly support progression of this document.
Equivalent functionality has been defined for IS-IS (RFC 6213) and has proven
very useful.
Although I am aware that some implementations have achieved the benefits of
strict-mode behavior by careful configuration, this suffers from the lack of
o consider
this scale. I am not going to try to convince you otherwise.
But if so you aren’t solving the problem we have been asked to solve.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Hopps
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 2:15 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc:
Greg –
With 100K PE scale, we are talking about 100K BFD sessions/PE and close to 5
million BFD sessions network-wide.
Eliminating one of the options we are discussing is admittedly a small step,
but still worthwhile.
However, If you still want to continue to advocate for BFD, I will say no
of Tony’s proposal
since he doesn’t think the IGP should be in the business of sending node
liveness information.
The service itself doesn’t even need to be running on a router at all.
Les
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:33 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Tony Li
to
support. Not the same thing as what you are proposing here.
Les
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:12 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-li-lsr-liveness-00.txt
Les,
My precedent is the use Router
Tony –
Inline.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 10:15 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-li-lsr-liveness-00.txt
Hi Les,
Thank you for commenting.
I am not enthused about this solution. Full mesh
Tony -
I am not enthused about this solution. Full mesh isn't appealing at scale. But
I recognize this as an alternative which some might find useful in some
deployments.
I also understand why and find it appropriate that you have introduced
discussion of this alternative in LSR. But
.
So long as we disagree on this fundamental point, we are never going to agree
on anything else and rehashing details is a waste of time for everyone.
Les
From: Aijun Wang
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 4:10 PM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr ; John E
Drake
Subject
Aijun -
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 6:45 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: 'Peter Psenak' ; 'Christian Hopps'
; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; 'Tony Li' ; 'lsr'
; lsr-...@ietf.org; draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attribu...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call
, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Here is my takeaway from this back-and-forth.
Several highly experienced routing folks have been looking at this draft in
detail and they are unable to come to a common understanding on what the draft
is trying to do.
[WAJ] I
has the correct intelligence.
Les
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 8:52 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Linda Dunbar ; Gyan Mishra
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Seeking feedback to the revised
draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute
> and I agree that using the
an you put some language in the draft that indicates the expected rate of
updates to the metric and some guidelines on limiting the frequency?
Thanx.
Les
From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 7:58 AM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: Gyan Mishra ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; lsr@ietf.o
: Gyan Mishra
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 5:26 PM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Linda Dunbar
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Seeking feedback to the revised
draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute
Robert
Here are a few examples of UCMP drafts below used in core and data
Here is my takeaway from this back-and-forth.
Several highly experienced routing folks have been looking at this draft in
detail and they are unable to come to a common understanding on what the draft
is trying to do. This alone indicates that the draft needs more work. Maybe the
authors have
Linda –
Inline. Look for LES2:
From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 10:48 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Seeking feedback to the revised draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute
Les,
Please see my questions to your suggestions inserted below:
Linda
From
Linda –
Please see inline.
From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:41 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Seeking feedback to the revised draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute
Les,
With regard to what You said about “needing to do load balancing
to deploy.
So I continue to wish we did not have to proceed to RFC state at this time –
but consider my objection as a “friendly” one.
Les
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:17 AM
To: Tony Przygienda
Cc: Aijun Wang ; Christian Hopps
; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr
Linda -
From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:47 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Seeking feedback to the revised draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute
Les,
Starting with a clean slate:
Problem:
Most applications are instantiated at multiple locations
, of course, choose not to follow this path - in which case it will fall
to the WG Chairs to determine the outcome of the adoption call.
Thanx.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Aijun Wang
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:19 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: '
Tony –
Probably too many emails in one day on this – but did want to respond to a few
points.
Inline.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 5:35 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Christian Hopps ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
; Robert Raszuk ; Shraddha Hegde
; Aijun
, January 10, 2022 4:43 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Christian Hopps ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
; Robert Raszuk ; Shraddha Hegde
; Aijun Wang ; Hannes Gredler
; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
Les,
And if customers could do what he suggested then they would not have an issue
Some comments from Robert offline cause me to issue a correction.
As BFD sessions are bidirectional we are talking about a Combination of (n,2) –
so in the case of 500 nodes the actual number of BFD sessions network-wide is
124750.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent
Robert –
The numbers are network-wide – not per node.
And no one has mentioned config as an issue in this thread – though no doubt
some operators might have concerns in that area.
Les
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 4:30 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Greg Mirsky
Greg –
Inline.
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 3:36 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Tony Li ; Christian Hopps ; Robert
Raszuk ; Aijun Wang ; Shraddha
Hegde ; Hannes Gredler ; lsr
; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
Hi Les,
thank you
Robert -
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 2:56 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Tony Li ; Christian Hopps ; Peter
Psenak (ppsenak) ; Shraddha Hegde ;
Aijun Wang ; Hannes Gredler ; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
Les,
We have received requests from real
, January 10, 2022 1:41 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Christian Hopps ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
; Robert Raszuk ; Shraddha Hegde
; Aijun Wang ; Hannes Gredler
; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
Les,
We have received requests from real customers who both need to summarize
are aiming for a modest number of
seconds.
Les
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 1:30 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Tony Li ; Christian Hopps ; Robert
Raszuk ; Aijun Wang ; Shraddha
Hegde ; Hannes Gredler ; lsr
; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
t;
Cc: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>; Les
Ginsberg (ginsberg) mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; Robert
Raszuk mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>; Shraddha Hegde
mailto:shrad...@juniper.net>>; Aijun Wang
mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>>; Hannes Gredler
m
the IS-IS encoding, please look at the equivalent proposed OSPF
encoding in the previous section and ask yourself why they are different.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:05 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Linda Dunbar
Subject: Re
Aijun -
Please see inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Aijun Wang
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:34 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Christian Hopps ; lsr@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org;
> lsr-...@ietf.org; draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attribu...@ietf.org
>
Linda –
I believe the most valuable feedback you received during your presentation at
IETF 112 is that using IGPs likely will not meet the deployment requirements.
In particular, persistence of a given client session with a given application
server is likely a requirement which will not be
+1
Hopefully this would help us understand the use cases better and why/if more
than one solution might be appropriate.
Can’t happen too soon IMO.
Les
From: Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 11:21 AM
To: Tony Przygienda
Cc: Christian Hopps ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; lsr
I oppose WG adoption of this draft.
In addition to my comments below, I am in agreement with the points made by
Peter and Shraddha previously in this thread.
My comments below are in the context of IS-IS/RFC5316, but I believe are
equally valid in the context of OSPF/RFC5392.
There are two
: Friday, December 10, 2021 10:56 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
; Tony Li ; Tony Przygienda
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS
Hi Les
My thoughts are that as both of these drafts are experimental, if both get
of either solution is
non-trivial – as is insuring interoperability – as is the actual deployment.
What justifies doubling that effort?
Thanx.
Les
From: Gyan Mishra
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 5:46 PM
To: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; Tony Li
their requirements. I think
this would help the WG discover better ways forward.
Don’t think we have made progress in that regard…
Les
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 1:59 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Tony Przygienda
Cc: Tony Li ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Using L1
appropriately.
Thanx for listening.
Les
From: Tony Przygienda
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 5:27 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Tony Li ; lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS
Les, all sounds to me unfortunately like a gripe
Tony -
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:52 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS
Les,
Here, I am not convinced that there is broad WG consensus that this is a
problem
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 2:53 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Acee Lindem (acee) ;
lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"
-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05
Les,
And in r
s proposed.
Les
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:31 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"
-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05
Hi Les,
From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@
When I look at this request, I see it in a larger context.
There are two drafts which attempt to address the same problem in very
different ways:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection/
and
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy/
Both
Robert –
One last time…inline.
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 11:12 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Tony Przygienda ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
; Hannes Gredler ; lsr ;
Tony Li ; Aijun Wang ; Shraddha
Hegde
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
Les,
> Pu
Tony –
Inline.
From: Tony Przygienda
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 9:33 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Hannes Gredler
; lsr ; Tony Li ; Aijun Wang
; Robert Raszuk ; Shraddha Hegde
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
"
Nodes which originate FSP-LSPs
: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 9:06 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
Les,
For all maintenance purposes there is need to drain the traffic from the router
before hitting reload or powering it off.
Sure services can be removed
Raszuk
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 9:02 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Tony Przygienda ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
; Hannes Gredler ; lsr ;
Tony Li ; Aijun Wang ; Shraddha
Hegde
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
Hi Les,
so one could argue that switching BGP traffic to the backup
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 7:36 AM
To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
Peter and Les,
Do you plan to have a provision to suspend PULSE generation for the planned
maintenance windows where service reachability
Tony –
From: Tony Przygienda
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 7:58 AM
To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Hannes Gredler
; lsr ; Tony Li ; Aijun Wang
; Robert Raszuk ; Shraddha Hegde
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
1. my question is different. why does the draft
the checksum is calculated. Will
do that in the next revision.
Thanx.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Hannes Gredler
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 11:22 AM
> To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
> Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> ; Aijun Wang ; lsr
> ; Ton
Hannes -
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Hannes Gredler
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 11:15 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Aijun Wang ; 'Robert Raszuk'
> ; 'lsr' ; 'Tony Li' ;
> 'Shraddha Hegde' ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
>
> Subject: Re: [Ls
As co-author, I support WG adoption.
I also strongly favor Experimental Track for this draft. This accurately
reflects the state of this work.
One of the possible final outcomes of this work may be that multiple approaches
work and that there is no need for standardization. TBD
Until the need
I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR.
Les
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 6:12 AM
To: draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flood...@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: IPR Poll for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" -
draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00
Draft
, a few responses inline.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 6:09 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Hannes Gredler ; Aijun Wang ;
Robert Raszuk ; lsr ; Shraddha Hegde
; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
Les,
Summarization is used
On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 3:22 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Hannes Gredler ; Aijun Wang ;
Robert Raszuk ; lsr ; Tony Li
; Shraddha Hegde ; Peter Psenak
(ppsenak)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
Les,
Thank you for clearly articulating your understanding. One
Robert –
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 2:54 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Aijun Wang ; Shraddha Hegde
; Tony Li ; Hannes Gredler
; lsr ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
s/ 1 days ago you said/ 11 days ago you said
Hannes -
Thanx for bringing a new voice into the discussion.
Please see inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Hannes Gredler
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 1:27 AM
> To: Aijun Wang
> Cc: 'Robert Raszuk' ; 'lsr' ; Les Ginsberg
> (ginsberg) ; 'Tony Li' ;
addressed in some subsequent thread. Just want
to point out that the solution does not have to have the same scale
characteristics as having no summaries.
Thanx for the discussion.
Les
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 10:56 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc
Tony -
The problem is that restricting the prefix length does nothing to limit the
number of advertisements that get flooded. In a high-scale situation, when
there is a mass failure, it would lead to a flooding spike. That’s exactly not
the time to stress the system.
[LES:] As I have stated
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 1:30 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Peter Psenak ; Tony Li
; Gyan Mishra ; Christian Hopps
; Aijun Wang ; lsr
; Acee Lindem (acee) ; Tony Przygienda
Subject: Re: [Lsr] 【Responses for Comments on PUAM Draft】RE: IETF 112 LSR
Meeting
, November 19, 2021 12:25 PM
To: Peter Psenak
Cc: Tony Li ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ;
Gyan Mishra ; Christian Hopps ; Aijun
Wang ; lsr ; Acee Lindem (acee)
; Tony Przygienda
Subject: Re: [Lsr] 【Responses for Comments on PUAM Draft】RE: IETF 112 LSR
Meeting Minutes
Peter,
yes, but it's not specific
Tony -
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 8:07 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Gyan Mishra ; Christian Hopps ;
Aijun Wang ; lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee)
; Tony Przygienda
Subject: Re: [Lsr] 【Responses for Comments on PUAM Draft】RE: IETF 112 LSR
Meeting
Shraddha -
In the case you mention (redistribution from another protocol), the advertised
router-id would be the ID of the originating router in the source protocol for
redistribution.
In your example, this ID would come from OSPF. However, the term "router-id"
means something different in
Tony –
Inline.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 5:24 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Gyan Mishra ; Aijun Wang
; lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ;
Acee Lindem (acee) ; Tony Przygienda
Subject: Re: [Lsr] 【Responses for Comments on PUAM Draft】RE: IETF 112
could explain why in the context of the above.
Thanx.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 4:32 PM
To: Aijun Wang
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ;
lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ; Tony Przygienda
; Acee Lindem (acee)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] 【Responses
;
Hannes Gredler ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana
Subject: Renew: Early Allocation for IS-IS TTZ
Hi Acee,
Would you mind renewing the Early Allocation for IS-IS TTZ?
The implementation of IS-IS TTZ is in progress.
Thanks much.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
Aijun –
From: Aijun Wang
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 12:16 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Lsr] 【Technical Discussion】"Prefix Unreachable Announcement" and
"IS-IS and OSPF Extension for Event Notifica
relationship hierarchy between PDU type and scope.
Some additional responses inline. If I did not specifically respond inline,
please look to this introductory response for the answers.
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 9:56 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Tony –
Given that IGPs provide the ability to advertise summaries (in the interest of
scalability), I think it is reasonable to say that being able to advertise
reachability changes of endpoints covered by the summary also can be considered
as a legitimate use of the IGP.
IGPs certainly
.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:50 PM
> To: 'Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)' ; 'Acee
> Lindem (acee)' ; 'Peter Psenak'
> ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] "Prefix Unreachable Announcement"
, 2021 1:57 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] "Prefix Unreachable Announcement" and "IS-IS and OSPF
Extension for Event Notification"
Hi Les,
I agree with all you said except this:
The nodes to w
PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Peter Psenak ; Acee
Lindem (acee)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] "Prefix Unreachable Announcement" and "IS-IS and OSPF
Extension for Event Notification"
Hi Les, et al.,
I've just read the draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-event-notification
Robert –
Inline.
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 12:52 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] "Prefix Unreachable Announcement" and "IS-IS and OSPF
Extension for Event Notifi
This thread is becoming "diverse".
We are trying to talk about many different solutions (IGP, BGP, BFD) - all of
which may be useful and certainly are not mutually exclusive.
If we can agree that an IGP solution is useful, then we can use this thread to
set a direction for the IGP solution -
Robert –
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 10:44 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Shraddha Hegde ; Tony Przygienda
; Ron Bonica ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-hegde-lsr-asla-any-app-00.txt
You continue to confuse Flex and ASLA.
I
ASLA Flex-specific – that would unduly constrain
future applications to be “just-like Flex”.
And, Flex is doing just fine as it is – one of the indicators of which I
believe is your enthusiasm for it.
Les
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 10:17 AM
To: Les Ginsberg
From: Shraddha Hegde
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 8:22 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Tony Przygienda
Cc: Ron Bonica ; Robert Raszuk ;
lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-hegde-lsr-asla-any-app-00.txt
Les
Shraddha -
> -Original Message-
> From: Shraddha Hegde
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 11:37 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Ron Bonica
> ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-lsr-asla-any-app-00.txt
>
> >There
propose is desirable or needed.
Les
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:33 AM
To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Ron Bonica
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-hegde-lsr-asla-any-app-00.txt
Hey Peter,
> An
Robert -
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2021 2:41 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Ron Bonica ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-hegde-lsr-asla-any-app-00.txt
But the entire point of A-bit is that you are doing this exercise to make sure
implementations to handle the
various combinations of possible deployments (only zero ABM, mix of zero-ABM
and A-bit, all A-bit) I do not see that ROI is worth it.
A few more responses inline.
From: Tony Przygienda
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2021 12:04 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Robert
Robert -
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 5:01 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Ron Bonica ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-hegde-lsr-asla-any-app-00.txt
Hi Les,
The point being is that “A-bit” is no different than introducing any other
Robert –
Inline.
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 1:29 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Ron Bonica ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-hegde-lsr-asla-any-app-00.txt
Hi Les,
Please see below.
It is not just that a new application wants
; Voyer, Daniel
> ; Jeff Tantsura ; Yingzhen
> Qu
> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Lsr] RFC 8919, RFC 8920, Flex Algo, and Flex Algo BW Constraints
>
> Peter,
>
> I'm afraid that you have not answered Dan's question,
Draft authors -
Comment #1
Regarding the example discussed in the Introduction, let's see if I understand
it correctly.
There are three (possibly more) applications enabled in the network. Let's call
them X, Y, and Z.
There are two attribute types being advertised on a given (set of) link(s).
Ron -
Indeed - it is long past the time when we should be focusing on the "big
picture".
I think Acee has stated it as succinctly as anyone - let me repeat for emphasis:
"The LSR WG developed ASLAs to cover usage of the link attributes (including
metrics) for different applications and
Qin -
Just to note that RFC 5310 does NOT replace or obsolete RFC 5304. Both RFC 's
have their uses.
Please be sure to reference both RFCs in your updated text.
Thanx.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Qin Wu
> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 6:13 PM
> To: Les Ginsbe
Yaron/Qin -
For IS-IS security please also see RFC 5310.
For OSPF security please see RFC 5709.
Regarding the debate about MUST vs SHOULD, as I see it advertisement of this
information is an option. The IGP might not have access to this information in
a given implementation/deployment - and I
Bruno -
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 2:13 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: IS-IS flooding
Some more questions on S13 (speeding UP, aka sensing the receiver performance)
Can you clarifying the definition of the three measurements
Bruno -
Inline.
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 1:41 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: IS-IS flooding
Les,
Thank you for the implementation and test results.
I have some clarification questions on your test results
S6:
What burst size did
D?
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 11:00 PM
> To: Robert Raszuk
> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
> ; Shraddha Hegde ; Van De
> Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) ;
> lsr@ietf.org
&
to leave ourselves vulnerable to something
which is so easily broken. This means more late nights for me.
Les
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 2:12 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Shraddha Hegde
; Robert Raszuk ; Van De Velde, Gunter
Tony -
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 1:37 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Shraddha Hegde
> ; Robert Raszuk ; Van De
> Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) ;
> lsr@ietf
Tony -
Thanx for separating out this thread.
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 1:25 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Shraddha Hegde
> ; Robert Raszuk ; Van De
>
301 - 400 of 834 matches
Mail list logo
