Re: [Lsr] [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

2020-11-15 Thread Susan Hares
Jeff: I agree your BGP-LS only deployment in the MSD document were not well defined. Starting a new set of work to define BGP-LS use in BGP-only is important. If this document start the process to refine how BGP-only works, this will help defined this usage. I stand by the

Re: [Lsr] [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

2020-11-15 Thread Susan Hares
Les: As you know, part of the chair’s duty is to determine if the authors have missed mentioning something in their draft proposal. My questions were about the BGP-only features since it seemed obvious to me after working with the draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps as a shepherd. BGP has had

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Robert: Does the following responses satisfy your concerns If I understand your questions correctly? From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 4:04 AM To: Jeff Tantsura Cc: lsr ; Aijun Wang ; Acee Lindem

Re: [Lsr] New Version for draft-wang-lsr-hbh-process-00

2020-11-15 Thread wangyali
Hi Huanan, Thanks for your review and comments. Please see inline [Yali]. Please feel free let us know your thoughts. From: chenhu...@chinatelecom.cn [mailto:chenhu...@chinatelecom.cn] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 10:00 AM To: wangyali ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version for

Re: [Lsr] New Version for draft-wang-lsr-hbh-process-00

2020-11-15 Thread chenhu...@chinatelecom.cn
Hello WG and Authors, I have read the draft. It is a good idea to use IGP extension to notification the HBH ablility. Commments as follow: 1. How to enable the IGP extensions for HBH? 2. Does the IGP use the HBH option as criterion to genernate a new topology? BR. Huanan Chen From:

[Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01.txt

2020-11-15 Thread Ron Bonica
FYI Juniper Business Use Only > -Original Message- > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2020 6:52 PM > To: Shraddha Hegde ; Peter Psenak > ; Ron Bonica ; Parag Kaneriya > ; Rajesh M ; William Britto A J > > Subject: New Version Notification for

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Thanks for clarification Robert, makes sense. Cheers, Jeff On Nov 15, 2020, 12:03 PM -0800, Robert Raszuk , wrote: > Jeff, > > I was not bringing RIFT's negative routies example as something inherently > negative. I was just pointing it out to illustrate that today's data plane > lookup does

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Robert Raszuk
Jeff, I was not bringing RIFT's negative routies example as something inherently negative. I was just pointing it out to illustrate that today's data plane lookup does not really support "if does not match" checks. So if you intend to use unreachable prefixes in data plane as result you need to

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Gyan Mishra
Robert & Acee I have been working with Aijun to help clean up the verbiage in the draft which after IETF 109 will plan to do an update based on feedback. I will be presenting this draft as well as the passive interface draft tomorrow morning. It has been challenging trying to graphically depict

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Jeff Tantsura
As RIFT chair - I’d like to respond to Robert’ comment - the example is rather unfortunate, in RIFT disaggregation is conditional and well contained within its context, it doesn’t affect overall scalability. Regards, Jeff > On Nov 15, 2020, at 08:44, Robert Raszuk wrote: > >  > Hi Aijun,

[Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-00.txt

2020-11-15 Thread internet-drafts
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF. Title : ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering Authors :

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Robert Raszuk
Hi Aijun, I would in fact only propose that the presented mechanism is narrowed down to invalidate BGP (service) routes - in fact their next hops. The reason being that the moment you make the solution generic, moreover the moment you want it to be used in RIB and data plane I am afraid you are

[Lsr] 答复: [Idr] WG Adoption for draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

2020-11-15 Thread Huzhibo
Hi les: I agree with you that IGP still has work to do. I think we can leave the work to LSR to complete it, which does not affect the current BGP work. Thank you. Zhibo 发件人: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com] 发送时间: 2020年11月15日 1:29 收件人: Huzhibo ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ;

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Robert: Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Nov 15, 2020, at 18:49, Robert Raszuk wrote: > >  > Hi Aijun, > > As I think what you are proposing overall is useful let me in turn comment on > some of your statements ... > >>> [WAJ] It is common, for example, ISIS level1-2 router will announce

Re: [Lsr] [Bier] PCE Controller & SDN Controller & Netconf/Yang NMS Controller - lines blurred and can the names be used ubiquitously meaning the same

2020-11-15 Thread Adrian Farrel
Hi Gyan, Sorry, I missed this (got caught on a filter cos it was a bit spammed to a lot of lists :-). > I have noticed that after reviewing many drafts across many WGs it seems in > the > industry that the lines seem to be blurred between a PCE controller, ODL or > Openflow SDN

Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases

2020-11-15 Thread Robert Raszuk
Hi Aijun, As I think what you are proposing overall is useful let me in turn comment on some of your statements ... [WAJ] It is common, for example, ISIS level1-2 router will announce the >> default route to the level 1 area. And, also in the OSPF totally stubby >> area. >> > Well let's just