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

[Peter Psenak]

Hi Shraddha,

On 03/09/2020 05:39, Shraddha Hegde wrote:
Peter,
In order to make the document clearer on this point, I would like the text 
below to be added
to section 11 to make it explicit that setting the L-bit is valid for flex-algo 
for ISIS.

=============
Section 11.

“The ASLA TLV in ISIS supports the L-Bit as described in section 4.2 of
[draft-ietf-isis-te-app]. When the L-bit is set, applications MUST use
legacy advertisements for that link. Flex algorithm application MUST support
sending and receiving link attributes with ASLA TLV having L-bit set.


I can add the above, although, it's clear from the 
draft-ietf-isis-te-app that L-bit with legacy advertisement MAY be used 
for any app.


Note that earlier versions of this document did not mandate use of ASLA TLVs
and hence may not inter-operate with early implementations that use legacy 
advertisements."

it is not true that "earlier versions of this document" did not mandate 
ASLA.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-00, which only 
supported the include/exclude Admin Groups, clearly stated:


9.  Advertisement of Link Attributes for Flex-Algorithm

   Various link include or exclude rules can be part of the Flex-
   Algorithm definition.  These rules use Admin Groups (AG) as defined
   in [RFC7308] and [RFC5305], or Extended Administrative Groups (EAG)
   as defined in [RFC7308].

   To advertise a link affinity in a form of the AG or EAG that is used
   during Flex-Algorithm calculation, an Application Specific Link
   Attributes sub-TLV as described in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app], or sub-TLV
   of Extended Link TLV as described in
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse] MUST be used.  The advertisement
   MUST indicate that it is usable by the Flex-Algorithm application.


thanks,
Peter



============


Rgds
Shraddha


Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 2:43 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; olivier.dug...@orange.com; 
tony...@tony.li; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>
Cc: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo....@ietf.org; Les 
Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; 
Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Hi Shraddha,

please see inline:


On 02/09/2020 06:45, Shraddha Hegde wrote:
Peter,

It is worthwhile to note the history of the flex-algo draft and the
te-app draft and how many  backward incompatible changes have been
introduced in the course of the flex-algo draft.

The original drafts of flex-algo did not mention the te-app draft and
was completely based on legacy advertisements.
Two years ago, after the working group adopted the original drafts
without the ASLA TLV, the text was changed to require the ASLA TLV.

draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-00, which was the initial version of the WG document 
already mandated the ASLA usage. I don't believe we have to go back to the 
individual drafts that predated the WG version.



ASLA TLV had the L-Bit and it was always valid to advertise link
attributes for flex-algo with L-bit set which means the link
attributes could still be sent in legacy TLVs.
In a conversation last year, you had agreed that advertising link
attributes with L-bit set is valid for Flex-algo.


what we say in flex-algo draft in section 11 is:

     "Link attribute advertisements that are to be used during Flex-
     Algorithm calculation MUST use the Application-Specific Link
     Attribute (ASLA) advertisements defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app] or
     [I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse]."

ietf-isis-te-app clearly allows the app specific value of the attribute to be 
advertised in legacy TLV and be pointed to by ASLA with L-bit.
This is perfectly valid for Flex-algo with ISIS.

Please note that etf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse does not have the concept of L-bit.


Towards the end of 2019, draft-ietf-isis-te-app-08 was posted. This
version said that only RSVP, SR-TE and LFA can use legacy advertisements.
This change in a different draft made using flex-algo with legacy
advertisements invalid.

no, not really. From the version 00, the WG version of the flex-algo draft 
mandated the usage of ASLA. And from day one of the draft-ietf-isis-te-app 
draft we mandated the usage of the ALSA for new applications, including the 
flex-algo. And usage of ASLA with L-bit together with the legacy advertisement 
of the link attribute is valid for any new application.


So implementations from 2 yrs ago may not inter-operate with the ones
implemented a year ago or the ones implemented based on published RFC.

let's be more precise here. The implementation of the pre-WG version may not 
inter-operate with WG version. I don't see a problem there really.

Implementations from a year ago may not interoperate with published RFC.

no, that is not true.


I don’t agree with this series of backward incompatible changes that
have been made in this document.  However, if the working group
decides to go ahead and request publication of the current version,
which has broken backward compatibility twice with previous versions,

above statement is not correct. The WG document has been consistent in terms of 
ASLA usage from 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 <ppse...@cisco.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 3:34 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; olivier.dug...@orange.com;
tony...@tony.li; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>
Cc: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>;
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo....@ietf.org; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org;
Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Hi Shraddha,

draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-00 was published May 15, 2018 (over two years ago).



It clearly stated:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr
-flex-algo-00*section-9__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U69buL_O8Dwro3_ks7FCVPZ2-jnY
KFPl7DWC_fZCGDapvakBVKlZPth_03Sd1J7b$

"To advertise a link affinity in a form of the AG or EAG that is used
    during Flex-Algorithm calculation, an Application Specific Link
    Attributes sub-TLV as described in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app], or sub-TLV
    of Extended Link TLV as described in [I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse]
    MUST be used. The advertisement MUST indicate that it is usable by the
    Flex-Algorithm application."

This is consistent with normative statements in both
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isi
s-te-app-19__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U69buL_O8Dwro3_ks7FCVPZ2-jnYKFPl7DWC_fZCGD
apvakBVKlZPth_09_HTtuT$  and
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iet
f-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U69buL_O8Dwro3_ks7FCVPZ2-jn
YKFPl7DWC_fZCGDapvakBVKlZPth_08_P1Wmy$
which REQUIRE the use of application specific advertisements by all 
applications other than the legacy applications (RSVP-TE, Segment Routing 
Policy,  Loop Free Alternate).

draft-hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-flex-algo had a lifetime of 10 months(V00 published 
in July 2017) and draft-ppsenak-ospf-sr-flex-algo only 3 months (V00 published 
in Feb 2018).

Juniper may have its own reasons why over the course of the past two years it 
has chosen not to modify its early implementation to be compatible with what is 
defined in the WG adopted draft. We do not question this choice. But it seems 
the most appropriate way to communicate this is for Juniper to document in its 
vendor specific documents that its implementation is based on a pre-WG draft 
and is incompatible with the IETF defined standard. IETF documents are not the 
correct place for such proprietary information.

It is obvious that the implementation that is not following the final 
specification will not interoperate with other implementations that do so. 
There is no need to mention that in the RFC.

thanks,
Peter and Les



On 25/08/2020 17:27, Shraddha Hegde wrote:
Hi All,

draft-lsr-flex-algo-00 was created by combining

draft-hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-flex-algo-02 and
draft-ppsenak-ospf-sr-flex-algo-00.

When draft-lsr-flex-algo-00 was published as a WG document, it
included

a requirement for using te-app encodings that did not exist in either

draft-hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-flex-algo-02 and
draft-ppsenak-ospf-sr-flex-algo-00.

Juniper's currently released implementation of flex-algo uses legacy
encodings,

as opposed to te-app encodings.  I would like the following text
added to

draft-lsr-flex-algo in order to record the history of these changes
and to make

operators aware of possible inter-op problems that may arise due to
the

non-backward compatible nature of mandating ASLA encodings.

=====

11.  Advertisement of Link Attributes for Flex-Algorithm

" Earlier versions of this draft did not mandate the use of ASLA TLVs
for encoding the

link attributes. There may be implementations that depend on legacy
encodings as defined in

RFC 5305, RFC 7810 , RC 3630 and RFC 7471. Implementations that look
at only ASLA encodings

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 <olivier.dug...@orange.com>
*Sent:* Thursday, August 20, 2020 7:56 PM
*To:* Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com>; tony...@tony.li; Robert
Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>
*Cc:* Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>;
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo....@ietf.org; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org;
lsr-...@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>
*Subject:* Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

*[External Email. Be cautious of content]*

Peter,

Le 20/08/2020 à 14:12, Peter Psenak a écrit :

      Hi Olivier,

      On 20/08/2020 13:58, olivier.dug...@orange.com
      <mailto: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, RFC8570 and/or TE-App draft. It is
                  then up to the operator to ensure the coherency of what
                  it is announced in its network by the different routers.


              I know you don't like the app specific link advertisement,
              but I'm afraid what you ask for is absolutely wrong.

              We defined the ASLA encoding to address a real problems for
              advertising the link attributes. We allow the link
              attributes to be advertised in both legacy and ASLA
              advertisement for legacy application (RSVP-TE, SRTE) to
              address the backward compatibility. Flex-algo is a new
              application, there is absolutely no need to use the legacy
              advertisement. Doing so would just extend the problem to the
              flex-algo application.


          Regarding the new version you provided, new section 5.1 (for
          IS-IS) and section 5.2 (for OSPF) mention respectively RFC 8570
          and RFC 7471 for the definition of Min delay and TE metric which
          is fine for me. But, they also made reference to draft
          isis-te-app, respectively ospf-te-link-attr-reuse to encode
          these value.


      that's what people were asking for. And it is right because we are
      mandating the usage of ALSA encoding for any flex-algo related link
      attributes.

          Here, it is confusing.


      I don't see how much more clear we can make it.

          Indeed, RFC 8570 and RFC 7471 also define the way to encode TE
          metric and Min delay.


      you have to distinguish between two things:

      a)  where Min delay and TE metric were defined - RFC 8570 and RFC 7471
      b)  how we encode it for flex-algo - isis-te-app,
      ospf-te-link-attr-reuse


          What I'm suggesting, is a clear reference to the RFC for TE
          metric and Min delay definition as well as the encoding
          (especially for the delay) while leaving open the door to how
          the router acquire these values: legacy a.k.a. RFC 8570 & 7471
          or new draft a.k.a draft-isis-te-app & draft-ospf-link-attr-reuse.


      no. This will not be done. We only allow ASLA advertisement for
      these metrics and other link attributes that are used for flex-algo.
      It is done for a reason and I have already explained that.

OK. Reading section 11 which clarify how metrics are convey, let me
suggest to make a reference to section 11 in section 5.1 and 5.2
instead of reference to drafts.


          In fact, in section 17.1.2, you mention only reference to RFC
          8570 & RFC7471 for the IANA definition which is fine for me.


      because in registry, we are defining a metric type, not how we are
      going to advertise it for the link.

OK.

          I would suggest the same wording for section 5.1. and 5.2
          leaving operator free about how it collect the values from the
          neighbour routers: legacy or new method.


      please stop trying to make use of legacy RSVP-TE link advertisements
      for flex-algo - it will not be allowed.

This raise to me a simple question: Is it possible to use 2 different
Flex Algo with delay metric, one for App A and another one for App B ?
if yes, how can we link metrics advertise in ALSA A from metrics
advertise in ALSA B ? The draft mention only one bit for Flex-Algo.

Regards,

Olivier

PS. I note a duplicate paragraph in section 12: "When computing the
path for a given Flex-Algorithm, the metric-type that is part of the
Flex-Algorithm definition (Section 5) MUST be used."


      thanks,
      Peter


          Regards

          Olivier

          PS. We have a pre-alpha implementation of flex algo using the
          legacy metrics and I know that recent IOS-XR provided similar
          implementation of flex algo based on legacy metrics.


              regards,
              Peter


                  Regards

                  Olivier

                  Le 18/08/2020 à 19:02, tony...@tony.li
                  <mailto:tony...@tony.li> a écrit :


                      Robert,

                      Thank you, exactly.

                      We just need a clarification of the document.  I
                      don’t understand why this is such a big deal.

                      Tony


                          On Aug 18, 2020, at 9:22 AM, Robert Raszuk
                          <rob...@raszuk.net <mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>
                          <mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>
                          <mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote:

                          Les,

                          I think this is not very obvious as Tony is
                          pointing out.

                          See RFC 8570 says:

                                  Type    Description


----------------------------------------------------

                                   33     Unidirectional Link Delay

                                   34     Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay

                          That means that is someone implementing it reads
                          text in this draft literally (meaning Minimum
                          value of Unidirectional Link Delay) it may pick
                          minimum value from ULD type 33 :)

                          If you want to be precise this draft may say
                          minimum value of Min/Max Unidirectional Link
                          Delay (34) and be done.

                          That's all.

                          Cheers,
                          R.



                          On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:04 PM Les Ginsberg
                          (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org
                          <mailto:ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>
                          <mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>
                          <mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:

                               Tony –

                               As an author of both RFC 8570 and
                          I-D.ietf-isis-te-app, I am not
                               sure why you are confused – nor why you got
                          misdirected to code
                               point 33.

                               RFC 8570 (and its predecessor RFC 7810)
                          define:

                               34           Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay

                               This sub-TLV contains two values:

                               “Min Delay:  This 24-bit field carries the
                          minimum measured link
                               delay

                                     value (in microseconds) over a
                          configurable interval,
                               encoded as

                                     an integer value.

                                  Max Delay:  This 24-bit field carries
                          the maximum measured
                               link delay

                                     value (in microseconds) over a
                          configurable interval,
                               encoded as

                                     an integer value.”

                               It seems clear to me that the flex-draft is
                          referring to Min
                               Unidirectional Link Delay in codepoint 34.

                               I agree it is important to 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 <lsr-boun...@ietf.org
                          <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>
                          <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>
                          <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>>
                               *On Behalf Of *tony...@tony.li
                          <mailto:*tony...@tony.li>
                          <mailto:tony...@tony.li> <mailto:tony...@tony.li>
                               *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:44 AM
                               *To:* Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
                          <ppse...@cisco.com <mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>
                          <mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>
                          <mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>
                               *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
                          <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>;
                          lsr-...@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-...@ietf.org>
                          <mailto:lsr-...@ietf.org>
                          <mailto:lsr-...@ietf.org>; Christian Hopps
                          <cho...@chopps.org <mailto:cho...@chopps.org>
                          <mailto:cho...@chopps.org>
                          <mailto:cho...@chopps.org>>; Acee Lindem (acee)
                          <a...@cisco.com <mailto:a...@cisco.com>
                          <mailto:a...@cisco.com>
                          <mailto:a...@cisco.com>>;
                          draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo....@ietf.org
                          <mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo....@ietf.org>
                          <mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo....@ietf.org>
                          <mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo....@ietf.org>
                               *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for
                          draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

                               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, average).

                               The problem is that that does not exactly
                          match “Unidirectional
                               Link Delay” or “Min/Max Unidirectional Link
                          Delay”, leading to
                               the ambiguity. Without a clear match, you
                          leave things open to
                               people guessing. Now, it’s a metriic, so of
                          course, you always
                               want to take the min.  So type 33 seems
                          like a better match.





                                   section 7.3. of ietf-isis-te-app says:

                                   Type   Description
                                                    Encoding


Reference


---------------------------------------------------------

                                   34      Min/Max Unidirectional Link
                          Delay    RFC8570

                               And it also says:

                               33      Unidirectional Link Delay RFC8570
                          
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8570__;!!
NEt6yMaO-gk!U69buL_O8Dwro3_ks7FCVPZ2-jnYKFPl7DWC_fZCGDapvakBVKlZPth_0
3pN2Sfl$ >

<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8570__;!!N
E
t6yMaO-gk!WKuLWanfqtEwcGfdMcPi6zO93gLNz6GLtiLn6c7mmIPhPYuTAufXgyh1ir2
Q
Dxsg$>


                               This does not help.



                                   So, IMHO what we have now is correct
                          and sufficient, but I
                                   have no issue adding the text you
                          proposed below.

                               What you have now is ambiguous. We have a
                          responsibility, as
                               writers of specifications, to be precise
                          and clear.  We are not
                               there yet.



                                   BTW, before I posted 09 version of
                          flex-algo draft, I asked
                                   if you were fine with just referencing
                          ietf-isis-te-app in
                                   5.1. I thought you were, as you did not
                          indicate otherwise.

                               My bad, I should have pressed the issue.



                                   Anyway, I consider this as a pure
                          editorial issue and
                                   hopefully not something that would
                          cause you to object the WG
                                   LC of the flex-algo draft.

                               I’m sorry, I think that this is trivially
                          resolved, but important
                               clarification.

                               You also have an author’s email that is
                          bouncing, so at least one
                               more spin is required.

                               Sorry,

                               Tony


                          _______________________________________________
                               Lsr mailing list
                          Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
                          <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
                          
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U69buL_O8Dwro3_ks7FCVPZ2-jnYKFPl7DWC_fZCGDapvakBVKlZ
Pth_07ffIqQQ$

<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_
_;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WKuLWanfqtEwcGfdMcPi6zO93gLNz6GLtiLn6c7mmIPhPYuTAufXg
y
h1ivswJmIk$>




                      _______________________________________________
                      Lsr mailing list
                      Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
                      
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U69buL_O8Dwro3_ks7FCVPZ2-jnYKFPl7DWC_fZCGDapvakBVKlZ
Pth_07ffIqQQ$

<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_
_;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WKuLWanfqtEwcGfdMcPi6zO93gLNz6GLtiLn6c7mmIPhPYuTAufXg
y
h1ivswJmIk$>


                  --
                  Orange logo
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.orange.com__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U6
9buL_O8Dwro3_ks7FCVPZ2-jnYKFPl7DWC_fZCGDapvakBVKlZPth_0350df6q$ >

<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.orange.com__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WKu
L WanfqtEwcGfdMcPi6zO93gLNz6GLtiLn6c7mmIPhPYuTAufXgyh1ipzYP8Zr$>


                  Olivier Dugeon
                  Orange Expert, Future Networks
                  Open Source Referent
                  Orange/IMT/OLN/WTC/IEE/iTeQ

                  fixe : +33 2 96 07 28 80
                  mobile : +33 6 82 90 37 85
                  olivier.dug...@orange.com
                  <mailto:olivier.dug...@orange.com>
                  <mailto:olivier.dug...@orange.com>
                  <mailto:olivier.dug...@orange.com>


_____________________________________________________________________
_ ___________________________________________________


                  Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des
                  informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne
                  doivent donc
                  pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans
                  autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur,
                  veuillez le signaler
                  a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces
                  jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles
                  d'alteration,
                  Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
                  altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

                  This message and its attachments may contain
                  confidential or privileged information that may be
                  protected by law;
                  they should not be distributed, used or copied without
                  authorisation.
                  If you have received this email in error, please notify
                  the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
                  As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for
                  messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
                  Thank you.

          --
          Orange logo
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.orange.com__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!U6
9buL_O8Dwro3_ks7FCVPZ2-jnYKFPl7DWC_fZCGDapvakBVKlZPth_0350df6q$ >

<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.orange.com__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WKu
L WanfqtEwcGfdMcPi6zO93gLNz6GLtiLn6c7mmIPhPYuTAufXgyh1ipzYP8Zr$>


          Olivier Dugeon
          Orange Expert, Future Networks
          Open Source Referent
          Orange/IMT/OLN/WTC/IEE/iTeQ

          fixe : +33 2 96 07 28 80
          mobile : +33 6 82 90 37 85
          olivier.dug...@orange.com <mailto:olivier.dug...@orange.com>
          <mailto:olivier.dug...@orange.com>
          <mailto:olivier.dug...@orange.com>


_____________________________________________________________________
_ ___________________________________________________


          Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des
          informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
          pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si
          vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
          a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
          messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
          Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
          deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

          This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
          privileged information that may be protected by law;
          they should not be distributed, used or copied without
          authorisation.
          If you have received this email in error, please notify the
          sender and delete this message and its attachments.
          As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that
          have been modified, changed or falsified.
          Thank you.

--
Orange logo
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.orange.com__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WKu
L WanfqtEwcGfdMcPi6zO93gLNz6GLtiLn6c7mmIPhPYuTAufXgyh1ipzYP8Zr$>

*Olivier Dugeon
*Orange Expert, Future Networks
Open Source Referent
Orange/IMT/OLN/WTC/IEE/iTeQ

fixe : +33 2 96 07 28 80
mobile : +33 6 82 90 37 85
olivier.dug...@orange.com <mailto:olivier.dug...@orange.com>

_____________________________________________________________________
_ ___________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous
avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.






_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr