Hi Tony,
Thank you for your comments. Please find replies inline.
From: Tony Li on behalf of Tony Li
Date: Saturday, 27 February 2021 at 7:26 AM
To: William Britto A J
Cc: lsr@ietf.org , Rajesh M , Shraddha Hegde
, DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New draft on Flex-Algorithm
Alvaro -
In your review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions you requested the authors
to
"Please ask IANA to set up a registry for the Flags."
in multiple cases e.g., the flags field defined in the new SRv6 Capabilities
sub-TLV.
This isn't the first time you have made such a
Hi William & Co-authors
>From first read of the draft it does appear your are trying to apply RSVP
TE PCALC path and reserve message link attributes constraints such as
concept of affinity bits to exclude low bandwidth or delay of individual
links without taking into account all of what RSVP TE
I support publication. Not aware of any IPRs.
Thanks
Gyan
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:51 PM Stefano Previdi (IETF)
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’m not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
>
> Thanks.
> s.
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2021, at 4:30 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
> >
> > Hi LSR and TEAS,
> >
> >
Hi William & co-authors,
I read the draft and have two basic questions.
1.
Both bw & delay can be used as defined in the draft to construct new
forwarding topologies. But how practical such topologies would be in the
real life when 40GB links may be heavily occupied with bursty traffic and
10G
