on behalf of adr...@olddog.co.uk
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 3:08:52 PM
To: 'Acee Lindem (acee)'; 'Dongjie (Jimmy)'; 'Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)';
'Toerless Eckert'; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q
I think that this thread keeps mixing concepts. As Acee
T.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Acee Lindem (acee)
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 4:49 AM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> ; Toerless Eckert ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q
>
> Hi Jie
routing which is, erm, something else
altogether.
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 19 November 2018 12:49
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; Toerless Eckert ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q
s,
Jie
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg
(ginsberg)
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 12:41 PM
> To: Toerless Eckert ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selectio
rg
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q
>
> Toerless -
>
> It's pretty hard to understand the context for your email.
>
> What leads you to believe that any of the MT specifications you mention say
> anything normative about DSCP and topolo
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: t...@cs.fau.de; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; r...@rob.sh;
tony1ath...@gmail.com; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q
Robert,
match DSCP X
set context Y or plane Z doesn’t make it any different.
It has been used and abused in any possible way
.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q
Robert,
match DSCP X
set context Y or plane Z doesn’t make it any different.
It has been used and abused in any possible way. If you want to write a BCP
saying - use it for X/Y/Z but not for A/B/C because of - your busi
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:14:45AM -0800, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> P.S. in my previous life, working on 5G transport slicing (yes, i know :))
> - i needed per slice identity over the common transport, we ended up
> looking at UDP port ranges, rather than DSCP - too few bits
Right. The main issue is
Rob,
Thats actually a good example, i had forgotten about that one.
This is also a lot more scalable than MTR given how (if i
remember correctly, you would only have O(#DSCP,#egres-PE)
entries.
Cheers
Toerless
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 04:47:26PM -0800, Rob Shakir wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov
Robert,
match DSCP X
set context Y or plane Z doesn’t make it any different.
It has been used and abused in any possible way. If you want to write a BCP
saying - use it for X/Y/Z but not for A/B/C because of - your business.
As to using it someplace else - I’d expect respective documents to
Jeff,
> What architecture?
> PBR is a form of:
> match DSCP X
> set next-hop Y
> needs no interoperability...
That's pretty narrow view. I could say the worst possible example :) You
would have to either encapsulate or apply your sample config consistently
on every hop. Br.
To me DSCP can
> On Nov 15, 2018, at 8:47 PM, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
>
> The question is really - what is here to standardize?
There’s a fine architectural BCP here: this is how we are solving problem XYZ.
Please don’t break this.
Tony
___
Lsr mailing list
+1 Rob
I have seen number of MBH networks using DSCP to change forwarding - AKA PBR..
The question is really - what is here to standardize?
RSVP-TE use cases mentioned by Rob (CBTS/PBTS in IOS realm) are classical
examples of Policy Based Routing and as such are subject to implementation
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 16:07 Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > And btw I read Peter's note as possibility (or invitation) to define
> > algorithm which takes into account DSCP rather then a announcement that
> > this is not there and it should never be.
>
> Sure, i am only talking about the solutions
; > > "It is assumed, but
> > >outside the scope of this specification, that the network layer is
> > > able to choose which topology to use for each packet"
> > >
> > > IGP WGs have never attempted to recommend (let alone normatively define
ine)
> any relationship between DSCP and MT.
> >
> > ???
> >
> >Les
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:29 PM
> > > To: lsr@ietf.org
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:29 PM
> > To: lsr@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q
> >
> > Whats the current best guidance on using DSCP for selection of path,
> > specific
Toerless,
On 15/11/18 03:29 , Toerless Eckert wrote:
Whats the current best guidance on using DSCP for selection of path,
specifically for selection of topology with MTR (RFCs 4915, 5120, 7722) ?
My understanding from history is that this looked like a good idea
to customers first, but when
ber 14, 2018 6:29 PM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q
>
> Whats the current best guidance on using DSCP for selection of path,
> specifically for selection of topology with MTR (RFCs 4915, 5120, 7722) ?
>
> My understanding from
Whats the current best guidance on using DSCP for selection of path,
specifically for selection of topology with MTR (RFCs 4915, 5120, 7722) ?
My understanding from history is that this looked like a good idea
to customers first, but when implementations became available,
customers really did not
20 matches
Mail list logo
