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

[Peter Psenak]

Hi Rudy,

On 03/09/2020 11:01, Selderslaghs, Rudy (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
Hi Peter,
My interpretation of the isis-te-app draft is that an ASLA TLV with L-bit set 
to 1, cannot be used for Flex-Algo.

no, that is not correct.

This can only be used for RSVP-TE, SR-Policy and LFA as specified in chapter 
6.1.

no.


From chapter 6.1 Use of Legacy advertisements:
    ...
    New applications that future documents define to make use of the
    advertisements defined in this document MUST NOT make use of legacy
    advertisements.  This simplifies deployment of new applications by
    eliminating the need to support multiple ways to advertise attributes
    for the new applications.

ASLA with L-bit pointing to legacy TLV is NOT considered legacy 
advertisement. It is valid ASLA advertisement.



Chapter 4.2. states that ASLA TLV with L-bit set means "using legacy 
advertisements":

no. It says that if L-flag is set, all apps mentioned in the bitmask 
MUST use the legacy advertisement to derive the value of the attribute. 
It does NOT say that ASLA TLV with L-bit set means "using legacy 
advertisements". It does not.

thanks,
Peter

    ...
    When the L-flag is set in the Application Identifier Bit Mask, all of
    the applications specified in the bit mask MUST use the legacy
    advertisements for the corresponding link found in TLVs 22, 23, 25,
    141, 222, and 223 or TLV 138 or TLV 139 as appropriate.

Regards,
Rudy

-----Original Message-----
From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 9:55 AM
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

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




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