Comments In-Line..
Thanks,
Jim Uttaro
From: Idr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of ???(??)
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 7:10 AM
To: spring <[email protected]>; SPRING WG List <[email protected]>
Cc: idr <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [spring] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your comments. Please see my response inline.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Send Time:2019年10月15日(星期二) 21:50
To:SPRING WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 徐小虎(义先)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc:idr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject:Re: [spring] [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt
Xiaohu,
few comments:
RFC7311 is very specific about containing routes with AIGP attribute within
AIGP administrative domain, while not well defined in RFC7311, perhaps worth
saying something?
[Jim U>] Yes.. The intention was to keep it loose as the use of BGP 3107
between AS domains should only require that administration of both is under the
same entity. TBH I am not sure on that one either, I think it should be
coordinating as AIGP metric needs to reflect the same metric upon evaluation in
either domain.
[Xiaohu] In fact, the performance routing mechanism as described in this draft
is targeted to be deployed across multiple domains which are under the control
of the same administrative entity.
The value field of the AIGP TLV in RFC7311 is 8 octets long - draft defines 4
octet value, I assume you are following RFC8570 and RFC7471 encoding?
[Xiaohu] Your observation is correct.
Rather that making AIGP TLV and NETWORK_LATENCY TLV mutually exclusive,
perhaps defining how they interact, if both are present would be a better
choice?
[Jim U>] Not sure why you need more that AIGP here.
[Xiaohu] I would consider it later.
Capability Advertisement - 3rd para doesn’t parse, be clear if it applies to
labelled routes only (RFC7311 is vague here - "tunneling of some sort”)
[Xiaohu]???
Manipulation of the Unidirectional Link delay sub-TLV in IGP’s could natively
be done by using Unidirectional Link Delay TLV in RFC8571.
[Xiaohu] Sure.
3107 has been obsoleted by 8277
[Xiaohu] will update it, thanks again for your comments.
Best regards,
Xiaohu
Cheers,
Jeff
On Oct 15, 2019, 11:57 AM +0200, 徐小虎(义先)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, wrote:
Hi all,
I just recently realized that the performance routing mechanism as described in
this draft could facilitate the deployment of segment routing across multiple
ASes of an administrative entity where low-latency SR paths across ASes are
needed for carrying latency-sensitive and high-priority traffic. In this way,
there is no need to resort to centralized TE controllers for calculating
low-latency paths across ASes.
Any comments and suggestions are welcome.
Best regards,
Xiaohu
------------------------------------------------------------------
From:internet-drafts <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Send Time:2019年10月14日(星期一) 13:09
To:i-d-announce <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc:idr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject:[Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the IETF.
Title : Performance-based BGP Routing Mechanism
Authors : Xiaohu Xu
Shraddha Hegde
Ketan Talaulikar
Mohamed Boucadair
Christian Jacquenet
Filename : draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt
Pages : 10
Date : 2019-10-13
Abstract:
The current BGP specification doesn't use network performance metrics
(e.g., network latency) in the route selection decision process.
This document describes a performance-based BGP routing mechanism in
which network latency metric is taken as one of the route selection
criteria. This routing mechanism is useful for those server
providers with global reach to deliver low-latency network
connectivity services to their customers.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Didr-2Dperformance-2Drouting_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=2D17KseO9-3MwxG0bv51v8h3paX_npCaWrx_HU63slQ&s=uJI2FdshAGO3ifqSHpNU-ok5RFr0KQDwMuSbiFmOhUs&e=>
There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Didr-2Dperformance-2Drouting-2D02&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=2D17KseO9-3MwxG0bv51v8h3paX_npCaWrx_HU63slQ&s=afoF9gCu3QLd-qWFaJAGJ-RycA5YktGfx-h7tI2fWKY&e=>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_html_draft-2Dietf-2Didr-2Dperformance-2Drouting-2D02&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=2D17KseO9-3MwxG0bv51v8h3paX_npCaWrx_HU63slQ&s=vu8ATfoOlOvueUw1znE78W0Q-elANw9PXralfRWtfk0&e=>
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Didr-2Dperformance-2Drouting-2D02&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=2D17KseO9-3MwxG0bv51v8h3paX_npCaWrx_HU63slQ&s=8j_-oOuKcjeBJQrTxgTZKOgUKEIiYCwBv38J7dN6DfY&e=>
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ftp-3A__ftp.ietf.org_internet-2Ddrafts_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=2D17KseO9-3MwxG0bv51v8h3paX_npCaWrx_HU63slQ&s=sWe9TOfNtkRfbU2QTObpTbhJvG9DKJqtXDz9PsTKADA&e=>
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_idr&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=2D17KseO9-3MwxG0bv51v8h3paX_npCaWrx_HU63slQ&s=i0EmqXkMVaF_AGwRneLdIWtw_T6SBdIVH9xwnYYYYys&e=>
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_idr&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=2D17KseO9-3MwxG0bv51v8h3paX_npCaWrx_HU63slQ&s=i0EmqXkMVaF_AGwRneLdIWtw_T6SBdIVH9xwnYYYYys&e=>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
