Re: [Lsr] More responses required [Re: WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03]

2021-02-10 Thread Linda Dunbar 


Hi Chris and all,

I support the adoption.

Best,
Linda Dunbar

-Original Message-
From: Christian Hopps [mailto:cho...@chopps.org] 
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 9:13 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Cc: Christian Hopps ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] More responses required [Re: WG adoption call for 
draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03]

Hi Folks, so far we've received only a single feedback on adopting this 
document, can we get a few more responses form the WG?

Thanks,
Chris.

> On Jan 5, 2021, at 4:19 AM, Christian Hopps  wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
> 
>  
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1%2Fdata=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cdb8fde278bed4ff0bf2c08d8c19c4a82%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637472224315571581%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=PvsCLIpMB4Mf9JNPVbywAIEKuAgGWNaS1nhU1NiwsvI%3Dreserved=0
> 
> Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.
> 
> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any 
> IPR that applies to this draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris.
> 
> 

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsrdata=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cdb8fde278bed4ff0bf2c08d8c19c4a82%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637472224315571581%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=9Eg%2FMJ2bJZwbomNE082zWqar4Fuvt4LLWQVspOCAFaY%3Dreserved=0

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

[Lsr] Revised draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext to associated the property with the Prefix (RFC7684) instead of the Stub Link

2021-02-10 Thread Linda Dunbar 
Acee and LSR WG,

Based on the mailing list discussion, we have revised the 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext/.

In particular,

  *   For App Servers using IPv6, the OSPFv3 Extended LSA with the 
Intra-Area-Prefix Address TLV specified by the Section 3.7 of RFC8362 can be 
used to carry the App-Metrics for the attached App Servers.
  0   1   2   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|7 (IPv6 Local-Local Address)   |   Length  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|IPv6 AppServer (ANYCAST) address   |
~   ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Load measurement sub-TLV   |
~   ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Capability sub-TLV |
~   ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference sub-TLV|
~   ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   Figure 3: IPv6 App Server App-Metrics Encoding


  *   For App Servers using IPv4 addresses, the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque 
LSA with the extended Prefix TLV can be used to carry the App Metrics sub-TLVs, 
as specified by the Section 2.1 [RFC7684].

Here is the proposed encoding:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type  | Length|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Type| Prefix Length | AF| Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Prefix (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Load Measurement Sub-TLV  |
~   ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| capacity Index Sub-TLV|
~   ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Site Preference Sub-TLV   |
~   ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Your comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Linda Dunbar

From: Acee Lindem (acee) 
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 1:38 PM
To: Linda Dunbar ; Yingzhen Qu 
; lsr@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Need 10 minute slot to discuss OSPF extension for 5G Edge 
Computing (was RE: [Lsr] IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests

We have a pretty full schedule and we add you as optional. I took a look at the 
draft and it is all over the place right now with standardization requested for 
one solution but 3 separate solutions partially specified. It could benefit 
from some WG mailing list discussion prior to a 10 minute presentation where we 
wouldn’t have time to discuss the many issues.

One major issue is that you should be extending RFC 7684 rather than RFC 3630 
and it seems you these app-server selection metrics should be associated with a 
prefix and NOT a stub link (i.e., the application server address).

I’ll try to read it in more depth before IETF 109.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>
Date: Monday, November 2, 2020 at 10:12 PM
To: Yingzhen Qu mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>, 
"lsr@ietf.org" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>, 
"lsr-cha...@ietf.org" 
mailto:lsr-cha...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Need 10 minute slot to discuss OSPF extension for 5G Edge Computing 
(was RE: [Lsr] IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests
Resent-From: mailto:alias-boun...@ietf.org>>
Resent-To: Yingzhen Qu 
mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>>, Acee Lindem 
mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, Christian Hopps 
mailto:cho...@chopps.org>>
Resent-Date: Monday, November 2, 2020 at 10:12 PM

LSR Chairs, YingZhen,

Can you give us 10 minute slot to present this new draft: