Hi Peter,
For Adj-sid and additional TE requirement, I am not sure what you refer to.
TE requirement or metric requirement? If it is metric related, we have ASLA
draft to address some TE related problem.
(To me, to reduce ASLA advertisement is required too.)
What TE problem are you referring
Hi IS-IS experts,
Please provide your valuable feedback.
Regards,
Venkat.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:00 AM Venkataratnam Naidu
wrote:
> Hello Experts,
>
>
>
> Need your opinion on how node should behave with "IS-IS summary-routes
> with overload-bit start-up"
>
>
>
> Ideally when an
Not the first (and probably not the last) time when popular acronyms are
expanded incorrectly☹.
Regards,
Sasha
-Original Message-
From: Lsr On Behalf Of RFC Errata System
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 4:56 PM
To: ba...@arrcus.com; ppse...@cisco.com; shrad...@juniper.net;
Sorry but I do not see how 1 label will allow me to steer packets via 5
different segment nodes and on each apply specific PHB. I am not taking
about FA based forwarding but SR-TE with PHB.
Thx,
R.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 4:42 PM Louis Chan wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
>
>
> In this case, the minimum
Louis -
I think our discussion is wrapping up - thanx for the thoughtful exchange.
I still have limited enthusiasm for the draft - but I understand it better now.
As others have mentioned in other emails, the big gap here is describing the
problem to be solved. The draft is too weighted on the
Verified. Also, note taken that it’s important to do a complete review of the
updates to the document before signing off on AUTH48 — the RFC Editor,
wonderful though they are, are not subject matter experts and they can and do
occasionally make these kinds of mistakes through no fault of their
The following errata report has been verified for RFC9350,
"IGP Flexible Algorithm".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7406
--
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Reported by:
Louis,
I must be missing something obvious ...
Consider the SR-MPLS case and 5 nodes on which I need specific PHB. Does
this mean that each packet requires at least *10 labels* on the stack
imposed on ingress ?
Many thx,
R.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 3:35 PM Louis Chan wrote:
> Hi ChangWang,
+ John for approval.
> On Apr 13, 2023, at 7:49 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
>
> +1 - please accept this Errata as editorial
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 8:28 PM Acee Lindem wrote:
> That explains it and it is actually the right thing to do from the
> perspective of
Hi ChangWang,
For #2, your interpretation is quite close.
Re-visit slide 8. For QOS, local adj-sid are interpreted based on range
2xxx - FA129 related
6xxx - VFA600 related
7xxx - VFA601 related
The current node, just examine the top label, could do policing at ingress, and
pass it to the
Jie,
Your Enhanced VPN documents are very well written - thx for sharing
the pointer to them. However I don't think I would put NRP as a new
Extension Header for IPv6 data plane or Post Stack Data for MPLS data plane
to indicate PHB in the packets.
I think there are better alternatives which do
+1 - please accept this Errata as editorial
Thanks,
Ketan
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 8:28 PM Acee Lindem wrote:
> That explains it and it is actually the right thing to do from the
> perspective of the IETF document process.
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt
>
> Note
Hi Krzysztof,
If my understanding is correct, you and Louis are considering about two
separate optimizations:
1. Allowing multiple “Virtual Flex-Algos” to share the SPF calculation of
one “legacy” Flex-Algo.
This can be addressed by the mechanisms described in section 2 of
Hi Peter ,
I don't agree that adj sid is not a major contributor.
Specifically, we can look at the following two scenarios:
1) flex-algo scenarios:
When deploying SR-TE or SRv6 TE, only ADJ-SID on this interface will increase
with the number of flex algos increased, so we need to optimize
Hi All：
I agree with Louis about the IGP flooding performance issues brought by
Flexalgo, especially SRv6. In fact, we have made similar analysis. On a network
with 1000 nodes, more than eight SRv6 Flexalgos will bring great flooding
pressure. In fact, Flexalgo has some other points that
Loius,
there are many reasons why we need to advertise additional data for
adjacency - TE being a major one. You are trying to optimize the Adj-SID
only, which is not the major contributor anyway. The problem is not
specific to Adj-SID.
In terms of convergence, if you are worried about the
Hi Peter,
There are practical numbers and theoretical numbers. It does not mean the
current practical number is always unchanged over years.
In some cases, these numbers could be used up, like 4K VLAN tag.
One should not post a strict limit what another one should not use.
CPU power and ASIC
Hi Peter/all,
Here I do a simple analysis on this scaling issue.
1. Assume a network with these parameters
- 20 x Flex-algo
- 2 x core nodes with 1,000 links
- network diameter with 5 hops
2. Just check out the additional advertisement size from core nodes following
ChangWang example.
For 1
Louis,
On 13/04/2023 10:13, Louis Chan wrote:
Hi Ketan,
You asked a good question.
The following comment is NOT for you. Don’t get me wrong.
For Flex-Algo, the number is running from 128-255, i.e. max 128
Flex-Algo in total
But now, if we say, even 20 FA, is too many, then why 128-255
Liyan,
On 13/04/2023 06:50, Liyan Gong wrote:
Hi All，
Thanks for your discussion, here are some informations to help
understanding better.
1. About the application scenario, please refer to the following draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gong-teas-hierarchical-slice-solution/
20 matches
Mail list logo
