Re: [Lsr] New draft on Flex-Algorithm Bandwidth Constraints

links that have delay more than a defined threshold. Thx, R. On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:31 AM Peter Psenak <mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote: On 03/03/2021 11:27, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > I am not sure I follow your logic here ... > > If we are already

Re: [Lsr] New draft on Flex-Algorithm Bandwidth Constraints

we are not defining the metric here, we are defining the constraint that says what is the maximum value of that metric that can be used. thanks, Peter Also does it really make sense to advertise maximum value of minimum value ? Thx, R. On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:22 AM Peter Psenak &l

Re: [Lsr] New draft on Flex-Algorithm Bandwidth Constraints

Robert, On 03/03/2021 11:10, Robert Raszuk wrote: Hey Peter, > Authors stated: "Whether egress queueing delay is included in the link > delay depends on the measuring mechanism." I disagree with that statement - the Min Unidirectional Link Delay is the value that does not

Re: [Lsr] New draft on Flex-Algorithm Bandwidth Constraints

that does not include the queueing delay - that's why it is called Min. So sure there will be thresholds etc ... but this may very well depend on the traffic. no. thanks, Peter Thx, R. On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 10:34 AM Peter Psenak <mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote:

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt

d from a single LSDB." please specify sub-LSDB. thanks, Peter Best, Yali -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 5:12 PM To: wangyali ; Gyan Mishra ; Robert Raszuk Cc: Huzhibo ; Aijun Wang ; Tony Li ; lsr ; Tianran Zhou Su

Re: [Lsr] New draft on Flex-Algorithm Bandwidth Constraints

Hi Tony, On 01/03/2021 21:47, Tony Li wrote: Robert, Constructing arbitrary topologies with bw constrain is useful work. For example I want to create a topology without links of the capacity less then 1 Gbps. All cool. Of course if I have a case where two nodes have 10 L3 1Gbps links nicely

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis

Hi, I support the publication. thanks, Peter On 17/02/2021 16:30, Christian Hopps wrote: Hi LSR and TEAS, This begins a joint WG last call for: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/ Please discuss any issues on the LSR mailing list. The WGLC will end March 3,

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt

nformation about LSPs that transmitted in a specific MFI are generated to synchronize the LSDB corresponding to the specific MFI." If the above has changed, then please update the draft accordingly. thanks, Peter Best, Yali -Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt

Gyan, On 26/02/2021 17:19, Gyan Mishra wrote: MFI seems more like flex algo with multiple sub topologies sharing a common links in a  topology where RFC 8202 MI is separated at the process level separate LSDB.  So completely different and of course different goals and use cases for MI versus

Re: [Lsr] Clarification on inconsistency between RFC7794 and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

in the two. thanks, Peter G/ -Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 16:39 To: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) ; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: Clarification on inconsistency between RFC7794 and

Re: [Lsr] Clarification on inconsistency between RFC7794 and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

Hi Gunter, On 24/02/2021 07:24, Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote: Hi Peter, All, I’m am trying to clarify a potential inconsistency between RFC7794 and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions. draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions says that we should advertise identical prefix-attr

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-14.txt

Title : IGP Flexible Algorithm Authors : Peter Psenak Shraddha Hegde Clarence Filsfils Ketan Talaulikar Arkadiy Gulko Filename: draft-ietf-lsr-fl

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-07

Hi Aijun, On 07/01/2021 03:15, Aijun Wang wrote: Hi, Acee and Peter: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8362#section-3.12 has defined the Route-Tag Sub-TLV for External-Prefix, is it more straightforward to extend this sub-TLV to be included in other Prefix TLVs(Inter-Area-Prefix TLV, Intra-Area-Pr

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-07

Hi Chris, I'm not aware of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this draft. thanks, Peter On 05/01/2021 10:17, Christian Hopps wrote: This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-ospf-admin-tags/ Please indicate your suppor

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

link attributes - application is "flex-algo" itself. These two are independent. Flex-algo ASLA are used for all apps in (a). thanks, Peter Thanks Zhibo -Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 6:11 PM To: Huzhibo ; Dong

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

s the concept of application and participation. That is however not equal to dataplane type. thanks, Peter Thanks Zhibo -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 5:59 PM To: Huzhibo ; Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr Su

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

as regular IGPs are not the one for algo 0. thanks, Peter Thanks ZHibo -Original Message- From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 5:13 PM To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for &

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Jimmy, On 11/12/2020 09:17, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: 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 Algor

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Jimmy, On 10/12/2020 13:02, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: In Flex-Algo draft, it says: "Application-specific Flex-Algorithm participation advertisements MAY be topology specific or MAY be topology independent, depending on the application itself." The preassumption of current IP Flex-Algo partici

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Jimmy, On 10/12/2020 09:06, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: 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 Algor

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

IPv4 or IPv6. Best Regards, Zhenqiang Li li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com *From:* Peter Psenak <mailto:ppsenak=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org> *Date:* 2020-12-09 21:05 *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <mailto:jie.d...@huawe

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Jimmy, On 09/12/2020 13:52, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: 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 Algor

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Zhibo, On 09/12/2020 13:05, Huzhibo wrote: Hi Peter: If Ti-LFA can protect IP flexalgo, the native IP and SR must share the same algorithm ID. that is correct. thanks, Peter thanks, Zhibo -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Zhibo, On 09/12/2020 11:50, Huzhibo wrote: Hi authors, Here are some comments about IP flexalgo as follows: 1.In Flex-Algo draft, there is description about using fast-rerouting with Flex-Algo for SR-MPLS and SRv6 data plane. It is recommended that similar text be added for IP Flex-Algo. t

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Jimmy, On 09/12/2020 11:10, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: 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

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Zhenqiang, On 04/12/2020 05:26, li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com wrote: Hello All, I've read the draft and support its adoption. I have some comments as follows. 1. I agree with Jeff that Flex Algo represents a sub- topology consisting of the participating nodes, which we can also call a virtual n

Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links

Hi Ketan, On 03/12/2020 11:26, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: Hi Peter, Please check inline below. -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak Sent: 03 December 2020 15:48 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) ; Alexander

Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links

been optional and not “base/required” behavior. *From:*Lsr *On Behalf Of *Acee Lindem (acee) *Sent:* 30 November 2020 23:18 *To:* Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) ; Alexander Okonnikov ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Acee Lindem (acee) *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Link Data valu

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Aijun, On 03/12/2020 02:31, Aijun Wang wrote: Hi, authors: Want to confirm one thing: Does the mechanism described in this draft support the automatic fallback from “flex algorithm” to the “traditional least-cost algorithm”? no. That is to say, can one prefix exists both in the “flex

Re: [Lsr] IPR Poll for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Acee, I am not aware of any undisclosed IPRs related to this draft. thanks, Peter On 01/12/2020 22:21, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Authors, Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RF

Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links

ised for TE purposes. thanks, Peter Thank you. 27 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:50, Peter Psenak написал(а): Alexander, On 26/11/2020 17:58, Alexander Okonnikov wrote: Hi WG, RFC 5185 says that Neighbor's IP address to be encoded into Link Data field. Per RFC 2328 router's own IP a

Re: [Lsr] Link Data value for Multi-area links

Alexander, On 26/11/2020 17:58, Alexander Okonnikov wrote: Hi WG, RFC 5185 says that Neighbor's IP address to be encoded into Link Data field. Per RFC 2328 router's own IP address to be encoded into Link Data. What is the reason to advertise neighbor's IP address for multi-area links and not

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt

Peter If acceptable, we can forward this draft along this direction. Aijun Wang China Telecom On Nov 5, 2020, at 17:15, Peter Psenak wrote: Aijun, the point I was trying to make was that you should think of a similar mechanism for your use cases - e.g. define something that advertises the

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt

the existing inter-AS link advertisement. thanks, Peter If acceptable, we can forward this draft along this direction. Aijun Wang China Telecom On Nov 5, 2020, at 17:15, Peter Psenak wrote: Aijun, the point I was trying to make was that you should think of a similar mechanism for your

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt

r 5, 2020 4:11 AM To: Aijun Wang Cc: Aijun Wang ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt Hi Aijun, You still didn't answer the question as to why you didn't rework this draft for passiv

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt

-Original Message- From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 4:11 AM To: Aijun Wang Cc: Aijun Wang ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt Hi Aijun

Re: [Lsr] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Hi Eric, are you fine with the proposed update to the "Backward Compatibility" section below? thanks, Peter On 19/10/2020 11:45, Peter Psenak wrote: Hi Eric, thanks for the review, please see inline: On 16/10/2020 20:48, Eric Gray wrote: Hello, I have been selected as t

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

Bruno, On 20/10/2020 14:47, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Peter, From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Bruno, please see inline: On 20/10/2020 11:43, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Peter, From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Bruno, On 19/10/2020 18:52

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

Bruno, please see inline: On 20/10/2020 11:43, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Peter, From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Bruno, On 19/10/2020 18:52, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Ron, all, >From a use case standpoint, I have a use case for having both SR-MPLS and

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

Bruno, On 19/10/2020 18:52, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Ron, all, From a use case standpoint, I have a use case for having both SR-MPLS and IP flexalgo in the same network. From a protocol standpoint, I think that the functionality could be equally met by advertising SR-MPLS SID as p

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-06

their influences, or else, they will just stay at the IETF repository. I disagree. RFCs are not deployment or use case documents. They exists to address the interoperability. More replies inline below. Aijun Wang China Telecom On Oct 19, 2020, at 17:14, Peter Psenak wrote: Aijun, On

Re: [Lsr] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Hi Eric, thanks for the review, please see inline: On 16/10/2020 20:48, Eric Gray wrote: Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-06

Aijun, On 19/10/2020 09:32, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: Aijun - I am not going to continue these side discussions with you. The primary purpose of the protocol extensions are as stated in the draft Introduction. This is analogous to the use cases for the equivalent extensions for IS-IS al

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-06

Hi Chris, I am not aware of any undisclosed IPRs. thanks, Peter On 15/10/2020 08:15, Christian Hoppsprotocol= application/pgp-signature wrote: This begins a 2 week WG Last Call, ending after Oct 29th, 2020, for: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator/ The

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

Hi Jimmy, On 14/10/2020 10:38, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: 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

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

Peter Many thx, R. On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 10:52 AM Peter Psenak mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Hi Jimmy, On 13/10/2020 10:02, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for your reply. Please see further inline: > &

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

Hi Jimmy, On 13/10/2020 10:02, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: 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

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

ication is orthogonal to constraints, constraints (e.g. FAD) is app independent. Participation in flex-algo is app specific. thanks, Peter Thx, R. On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:47 AM Peter Psenak mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Hi Jimmy. On 12/10/2020 09:12

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

, Peter Best regards, Jie -Original Message- From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 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

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

Ho Ron, On 10/10/2020 14:47, Ron Bonica wrote: Hi Jimmie, Inline. Ron Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: Dongjie (Jimmy) Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 11:06 PM To: Peter Psenak ; Ron Bonica ; Yingzhen Qu ; Gyan Mishra Cc: lsr@ietf.org

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

participation using the IGP Algorithm Sub-TLV. Only these nodes will be used during the IP flex-algo computation for algo 128. thanks, Peter 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

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

, Jie -Original Message- From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 4:34 AM To: Yingzhen Qu ; Peter Psenak ; Gyan Mishra Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.tx

Re: [Lsr] Pre-writeup review comments

the section 12.5. It looks like there is more discussion from Joel on this draft, so I will hold off on submission for that to resolve. I have removed the END.T in the latest version. The discussion with Joel is closed. thanks, Peter Thanks, Chris. On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:36 PM, Peter Ps

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-01

Hi Chris, I support the adoption of this document by the WG and as a co-author. I am not aware of any IPR associated with it. thanks, Peter On 02/10/2020 14:03, Christian Hoppsprotocol= application/pgp-signature wrote: This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft: https

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

47 AM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: Hi Yingzhen, On 02/10/2020 22:15, Yingzhen Qu wrote: > Hi Peter, > > My understanding of flex-algo is that for traffic destined to a prefix on a particular algo, it can only be routed on routers belong to that algo, which al

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

Hi Gyan, On 03/10/2020 18:54, Gyan Mishra wrote: Thanks Peter for the responses to help clear up my flex algo understanding!! On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 5:45 AM Peter Psenak <mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote: Gyan, On 03/10/2020 02:14, Gyan Mishra wrote: >

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

flex-algo with SRv6 - locator is associated with a single algo only. The proposal uses the same concept. thanks, Peter Thanks, Yingzhen On 10/2/20, 9:43 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak" wrote: Gyan, On 02/10/2020 18:30, Gyan Mishra wrote: > All, &g

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

misunderstood something. Thanks, Yingzhen On 10/2/20, 9:43 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak" mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of ppsenak=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Gyan, On

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

Gyan, On 02/10/2020 18:30, Gyan Mishra wrote: All, With SRv6 and IP based flex algo a generic question as it applies to both. Is it possible to have within a single IGP domain different sets of nodes or segments of the network running different algorithms. absolutely. From both drafts i

Re: [Lsr] IPR Call on "IGP Flexible Algorithm" - draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-11.txt

Hi Acee, I am not aware of any IPR other than the one already disclosed below. thanks, Peter On 01/10/2020 22:24, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Authors, The following IPR has been disclosed (excerpted from https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo): *D

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

Hi Ron, I can only guess the use-case, but it may be worth of documenting it in the draft. Your proposal is basically mimicking SRv6 Locator behavior for regular IPv6 and IPv4 prefixes. One can even argue that for IPv6 you can use a Locator advertisement with no SIDs, but I agree that would

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

it clear and make it also a MUST. So my point is that for SRv6 or Ron's proposal next hop MUST be only learned via local IGP or be of no less then /X to be used for BGP next hop resolution. Many thx, R, On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 5:18 PM Peter Psenak <mailto:ppse...@cisco.com

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

the NH as algo specific prefix I assume and the rest is the same. But what if that next hop would happen to be covered by some aggregate route not subject perhaps to intended IP TE ? aggregation needs to be algo aware for it to work. thanks, Peter Cheers, R. On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:11

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

Hi Robert, On 30/09/2020 09:28, Robert Raszuk wrote: Hi, > It uses the HBH option Currently Ron's proposal seems to work well for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. I hope this discussion will not try to derail it to IPv6 only track. I see no issue with loopback to flexible algorithm mapping i

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

Hi Joel, On 30/09/2020 06:04, Joel M. Halpern wrote: I am missing something in this discussion of multiple algorithms. not really. My understanding of flex-algo whether for MPLS, SRv6, SRH, or IPv6, is that you need to associated a forwarding label (e.g. MPLS label or IPv6 address) with a s

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt

with the abstract capabilities of the area inside. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -Original Message- From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 9:16 PM To: Peter Psenak ; Aijun Wang ; 'Aijun

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt

ginal Message- From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 4:29 PM To: Aijun Wang Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt Hi Aijun, here's

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-10.txt

t Routing over IPv6 Dataplane > Authors : Peter Psenak >Clarence Filsfils >Ahmed Bashandy >Bruno Decraene >Zhibo Hu > Filename

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt

Hi Aijun, here's my comments: The purpose of this draft is to advertise passive links. 1. I'm not sure the problem needs to be solved by IGPs. I tend to believe ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext is sufficient. 2. the solution that you proposed is wrong. You are trying to derive topologic

Re: [Lsr] Pre-writeup review comments

Hi Chris, thanks for your comments. Please see inline (##PP): On 18/09/2020 16:08, Christian Hoppsprotocol= application/pgp-signature wrote: During my review and while doing the Shepherd writeup for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/ I came up with the fol

Re: [Lsr] 回复: New Version Notification for draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-01.txt

Hi Jie, On 16/09/2020 12:02, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: Hi Peter, Thanks for your comment. Please see some replies inline: -Original Message- From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 4:46 PM To: zhu...@chinatelecom.cn; lsr

Re: [Lsr] 回复: New Version Notification for draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-01.txt

Yongqing, I have two basic comments: 1. Using L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV for advertising attributes for VTNs seems like a hack. 2. "In order to correlate the virtual or physical member links with the corresponding VTNs, each member link SHOULD be assigned with a dedicated Admin

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

so simplifies and align ISIS and OSPF routing protocol behavior. It reduce interop issues footprint with systems not supporting ASLA.) G/ -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 12:02 To: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp); Selderslaghs

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-09.txt

: IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 Dataplane Authors : Peter Psenak Clarence Filsfils Ahmed Bashandy Bruno Decraene Zhibo Hu Filename

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Hi Bruno, please see inline: On 07/09/2020 17:31, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Hi Peter, From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 9:55 AM Hi Shraddha, On 03/09/2020 05:39, Shraddha Hegde wrote: Peter, In order to make the

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

LV was introduced. The link to this draft, you have copied in the mail above. I think it is fair to warn the operators on the possible inter-op issues this could cause. I would like to see the above sentence added to the draft. Rgds Shraddha Juniper Business Use Only -----Original Message

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

lated that flex-algo ASLA with L-bit SET is semantically a valid ASLA. This also simplifies and align ISIS and OSPF routing protocol behavior. It reduce interop issues footprint with systems not supporting ASLA.) G/ -Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Thursday, September

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

ertisement. Hence, I suggest that we should make it explicit clear that L-bit set for flex-algo is MUST NOT be allowed. L-bit is allowed with any app, including the flex-algo. thanks, Peter G/ -Original Message- From: Lsr On Behalf Of Peter Psenak Sent: Thursday, September 3, 202

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

ssage- From: Lsr On Behalf Of Peter Psenak Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 9:55 AM To: Shraddha Hegde ; olivier.dug...@orange.com; tony...@tony.li; Robert Raszuk Cc: Christian Hopps ; draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo@ietf.org; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; Acee Li

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

pplication. thanks, Peter Rgds Shraddha Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 2:43 PM To: Shraddha Hegde ; olivier.dug...@orange.com; tony...@tony.li; Robert Raszuk Cc: Christian Hopps ; draft-ietf-lsr-fl

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

day one. thanks, Peter I want the history to be accurately recorded. This allows network operators to better understand the history and ensure interoperability across vendors before deploying. Rgds Shraddha Juniper Business Use Only -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Th

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

ings for flex-algo based on this version of the document will not interoperate with versions that use legacy advertisements. " Rgds Shraddha Juniper Business Use Only *From:*olivier.dug...@orange.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 20, 2020 7:56 PM *To:* Peter Psenak ; tony...@ton

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Olivier, On 20/08/2020 16:25, olivier.dug...@orange.com wrote: Peter, Le 20/08/2020 à 14:12, Peter Psenak a écrit : Hi Olivier, On 20/08/2020 13:58, olivier.dug...@orange.com wrote: Hi Peter, Thank for the new version. Le 19/08/2020 à 14:00, Peter Psenak a écrit : Olivier, [ ... ] So

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Hi Olivier, On 20/08/2020 13:58, olivier.dug...@orange.com wrote: Hi Peter, Thank for the new version. Le 19/08/2020 à 14:00, Peter Psenak a écrit : Olivier, [ ... ] So, to speed up the deployment, I would prefer a reference to a delay value that could be advertise by means of RFC7471

Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV usage for External/NSSA prefixes defined in RFC 8665

SRMS (redistribution across IGP protocols) , Range TLV is not applicable to use in that use case? no. At this point, Range TLV is defined only for SRMS mapping advertisement. thanks, Peter Thanks & Regards, Veerendranath -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Wednesday, Au

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

be unambiguous in specifications, but I think Peter has been very clear. Please explain how you managed to end up at code point 33??    Les *From:* Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> *On Behalf Of *tony...@tony.li <mailto:tony...@tony.li> *Sent:* Tuesday,

Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV usage for External/NSSA prefixes defined in RFC 8665

ards, Veerendranath -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 1:39 PM To: Veerendranatha Reddy V ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV usage for External/NSSA prefixes defined in RFC 8665 Veerendranath, On 19/08/2020 1

Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV usage for External/NSSA prefixes defined in RFC 8665

nath -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 1:23 PM To: Veerendranatha Reddy V ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV usage for External/NSSA prefixes defined in RFC 8665 Hi Veerendranatha, On 19/08/2020 06:23, Veerendran

Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV usage for External/NSSA prefixes defined in RFC 8665

e LSA. Thanks & Regards, Veerendranath -Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 11:06 PM To: Veerendranatha Reddy V ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV usage for External/NSSA prefixes defined in RFC 8665 Veerendranath,

Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV usage for External/NSSA prefixes defined in RFC 8665

Veerendranath, On 18/08/2020 16:40, Veerendranatha Reddy V wrote: Hi Authors, All, OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV defined in RFC 8665 has IA flag to distinguish between Intra and Inter Area scope prefixes. Whether any restrictions to not to use Prefix Range TLV for external/NSSA prefixes ?

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Please explain how you managed to end up at code point 33?? __ __    Les __ __ __ __ __ __ *From:* Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> *On Behalf Of *tony...@tony.li <mailto:tony...@tony.li> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:44 AM

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Hi Tony, On 18/08/2020 16:44, tony...@tony.li wrote: Hi Peter, section 5.1 of the draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo says: Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]. We explicitly say "Min Unidirectional Link Delay", so this cannot be mixed with other delay values (max, ave

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Hi Chris, I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR. thanks, Peter On 18/08/2020 01:30, Christian Hoppsprotocol= application/pgp-signature wrote: This begins a 2 week WG Last Call, ending after September 1st, 2020, for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Hi Tony, section 5.1 of the draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo says: Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]. We explicitly say "Min Unidirectional Link Delay", so this cannot be mixed with other delay values (max, average). section 7.3. of ietf-isis-te-app says: Type De

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

Hi Tony, Sarah, On 10/08/2020 18:00, tony...@tony.li wrote: Hi Peter, The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC7810 ]". When reading RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs: 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Un

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

Hi Tony, On 10/08/2020 16:21, tony...@tony.li wrote: Hi Peter, The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC7810 ]". When reading RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs: 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Unidirec

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

Tony, ok, seems like Gunter and you share the same concerns. Will clarify the two points discussed. thanks, Peter On 07/08/2020 17:30, tony...@tony.li wrote: Peter, . The existing description in section 5.1 indicate that legacy encoding (RFC7810 and RFC5305) is used for link attribute

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

Hi Sarah, On 08/08/2020 01:33, Sarah Chen wrote: Hi, Peter, The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC7810 ]". When reading RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs: 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Unidirectio

[Lsr] WG LC Request for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Hi Acee, Chris, as discussed during the WG meeting last week, on behalf of all authors of draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo, I would like to ask for the WG LC. thanks, Peter ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

eter G/ ____ From: Peter Psenak Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 6:37:42 PM To: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) ; draft-ietf-lsr-flex-a...@ietf.org Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo Hi Gunter,

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >