Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Huzhibo
Hi Joel: For details about the method defined in RFC 6550. It uses the HBH option to carry the RPLInstaceID. The RPLInstaceID and FlexAlgoID are similar. Thanks Zhibo -Original Message- From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern Sent: Wednesday,

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Joel M. Halpern
I am missing something in this discussion of multiple algorithms. My understanding of flex-algo whether for MPLS, SRv6, SRH, or IPv6, is that you need to associated a forwarding label (e.g. MPLS label or IPv6 address) with a specific algorithm so that you can compute the next hope for the

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Huzhibo
Hi. Associating multiple algorithms with a given prefix is an interesting topic, and I think this can simplify the complexity of FlexAlgo. I wonder if the author would consider using cases with multiple algorithms with a given prefix. Thanks ZHibo -Original Message- From: Lsr

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Acee and Peter: Passive interface is mainly used at the edge of the network, where the unnumbered interface will not be used. And the information to flag the passive interfaces is for positioning the area boundary, not conflict with the abstract capabilities of the area inside. Best

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-04.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Hi Tom, We can add the references. See ACEE>. On 8/13/20, 6:03 AM, "Lsr on behalf of tom petch" wrote: From: Lsr on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: 13 August 2020 05:37 I said before that it was tough to review because of a lack of references in the YANG module and

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Jia Chen
Not sure whether the use case that the underlay network and the overlay network that belong to two different administrations is within this scope ? or has it already been covered by some other draft or RFCs? Assuming there are multiple underlay paths from A to B. Overlay would like to influence

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-10.txt - END.T

2020-09-29 Thread Joel M. Halpern
Thanks for the clarifications to Peter and Ketan. (I now understand what I missed about the control for END.DT2M.) It seems that as currently laid out, the document appears to define the encoding for END.T, but does not provide enough information to use it? Which suggests that we should

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-29 Thread tony . li
Ron, This is nice. It makes it clear that constraint based path computation need not have MPLS overhead for those that don’t want it. One thing that you don’t talk about is how this gets used, tho that may be blindingly obvious: you’ll need all nodes placing their prefixes in the RIB/FIB,

[Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Ron Bonica
Please review and comment Ron Juniper Business Use Only > -Original Message- > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 9:36 AM > To: Parag Kaneriya ; Shraddha Hegde > ; Ron Bonica ; Rajesh M > ; William Britto A J >

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Speaking as WG member: Hi Aijun, Peter, I agree with Peter - one of the main motivations for having areas is to abstract the topology within the area. Now you're trying to supplant this - one topological detail at a time with ill-conceived IGP features. Thanks, Acee On 9/29/20, 5:15 AM,

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Aijun, On 29/09/2020 11:07, Aijun Wang wrote: Hi, Peter: Thanks for your comments. 1. For BGP-LS deployment, there normally only be one router that within the IGP domain to report the topology information, this router should know such passive links which exists mainly on other border

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Peter: Thanks for your comments. 1. For BGP-LS deployment, there normally only be one router that within the IGP domain to report the topology information, this router should know such passive links which exists mainly on other border routers via the IGP protocol. This is main reason to

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-10.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Peter Psenak
Joel, Ketan, On 28/09/2020 15:25, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: Hi Joel, Please check inline below. -Original Message- From: Lsr On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern Sent: 25 September 2020 19:08 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action:

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Aijun, here's my comments: The purpose of this draft is to advertise passive links. 1. I'm not sure the problem needs to be solved by IGPs. I tend to believe ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext is sufficient. 2. the solution that you proposed is wrong. You are trying to derive