Support
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 6:17 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: cho...@chopps.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] WG adoption call for
Support
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 6:17 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: cho...@chopps.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] WG adoption call for
Cogent analysis of the situation
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 27, 2022, at 6:39 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
wrote:
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
(Preamble: All of what I am going to say I have said many times before – on the
list – off the list – in private conversations – in WG
Les,
I'm happy with either 1 or 2. It's good work and I think it will become
important.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
> -Original Message-
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 4:01 PM
> To: John E Drake ; Les Ginsbe
Hi,
I don't understand why we don't just go through the normal Standards track
process. I am sure there are any number of Standards track RFCs which are
published and which are neither widely implemented nor widely deployed, but
which may become so in the future.
As Peter noted in the
Gyan,
I don't think we want a 1:1 mapping between NRP and FAD because it is a too
restrictive and because it unnecessarily burns through FADs. Rather, what I
think we want is a set of resource SIDs, one per-NRP that are allocated by each
node that is part of a FAD on each of its links that
Hi,
In the IETF context I have always associated 'data plane' with packet
forwarding, so I think Peter's suggestion is fine.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 5:21 AM
To: Peter Psenak
Cc: Ketan
will curb your
behavior.
y
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 18, 2022, at 5:58 PM, Aijun Wang wrote:
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi, John:
If you follow Les, then also follow my responses to Les.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
在 2022年2月19日，06:28，John E Drake 写道：
Hi,
I completely agree
Hi,
I completely agree with the email from Les, below. "Do no harm" is an
insufficient reason to adopt a draft of redundant and dubious functionality.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>
This seems to be argument by emphatic assertion.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Aijun Wang
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 7:45 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps
; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; Tony Li ; lsr
; lsr-...@ietf.org; draft-wang
flawed.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Aijun Wang
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 7:40 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Robert Raszuk
; Christian Hopps ; Shraddha Hegde
; Tony Li ; Hannes Gredler
; lsr ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
Subject: Re: [Lsr
PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Gyan Mishra ; Les
Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Linda Dunbar
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Seeking feedback to the revised
draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi, John:
Here I would also like to hear your own opinions
If I agree with Les, why do I need to repeat everything he has said?
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Aijun Wang
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 6:03 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Peter Psenak
; Christian Hopps ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org;
Tony Li
Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Aijun Wang
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 5:53 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; Christian Hopps ; Shraddha Hegde
; Tony Li ; Hannes Gredler
; lsr ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
Hi,
Comment inline below.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:15 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Christian Hopps ; Aijun Wang
; Shraddha Hegde ; Tony Li
; Hannes Gredler ; lsr ;
Peter Psenak
Robert is correct on all points.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 4:20 AM
To: Gyan Mishra
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Linda Dunbar
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Seeking feedback to the revised
I agree with Les. This draft is gratuitous and ill-considered.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 2:22 AM
To: Aijun Wang
Cc: 'Peter Psenak' ; 'Christian Hopps'
; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; 'Tony Li'
No, as I indicated previously, this discussion has been had many times - it
reminds me of 'Groundhog Day'.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
> -Original Message-
> From: Aijun Wang
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 11:00 AM
> To: John E Drake
19, 2020 10:41 AM
> To: John E Drake
> Cc: Peter Psenak ; Peter Psenak ;
> Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Christian Hopps
> ; Aijun Wang ; lsr-
> cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura ; draft-
> ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-origina...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ls
un Wang ; Peter Psenak
>
> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Aijun Wang
> ; Christian Hopps ; John E
> Drake ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura
> ; draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-origina...@ietf.org;
> lsr-
> a...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call draft-iet
move the Appendices I cannot support the draft.
>
> Please discuss this with your co-authors and come to consensus on your next
> step.
>
>Les
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Aijun Wang
> > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:06 AM
> &g
Hi,
I agree with Les. This is a simple protocol extension for a specific purpose
and there is no reason to include speculation about its use for other purposes,
particularly when it is inherently not suited for them.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
> -Original
Hi,
The proponents of this draft seem to be arguing by repeated assertion.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Kiran Makhijani
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 5:07 PM
To: Gyan Mishra ; Robert Raszuk
Cc: Les Ginsberg ; tony...@tony.li; Acee Lindem
As am I.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 5:07 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone" -
I agree w/ Henk. The TTZ seems to be a gratuitous addition.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Henk Smit
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 8:22 AM
> To: Huaimo Chen
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Request WG
I had mentioned "Application Specific"
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Yingzhen Qu
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 4:30 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A ;
The IESG
Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; aretana.i...@gmail.com; Acee
Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Aijun Wang
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 9:37 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Joel M. Halpern ; xie...@chinatelecom.cn; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based
Virtual Transport Network
[External Email
Hi,
As Joel notes, it is true that enhanced VPNs require the use of specific
underlay network resources, either dedicated or shared, but the this needs to
be done without installing overlay VPN awareness in the P routers, which is
inherently unscalable and operationally complex. Also, since
I'm not aware of any IPR.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Internal
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 5:30 PM
To: draft-ietf-isis-te-...@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] IPR Poll for "IS-IS TE Attributes per application" -
Hi,
What does 'rate limit' mean in this context?
Yours Irrespectively,
John
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 2:20 PM
> To: tony...@tony.li
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding
>
> On
I agree w/ Peter.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 2:38 AM
> To: tony...@tony.li; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> On 04/03/2019 18:54 ,
Chris,
Well put.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 10:56 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; 'Christian Hopps'
> ; Aijun Wang
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] 答复: WG Adoption
Hi,
I completely agree with Peter.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 2:30 AM
> To: Huaimo Chen ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> ; Christian Hopps ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re:
Chris & Acee,
This looks fine to me.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 7:26 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: cho...@chopps.org
> Subject: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
>
>
Hi,
The answers that Les gives, below, to Yoshifumi are completely correct.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 3:06 PM
To: Yoshifumi Nishida
Cc: nish...@wide.ad.jp; tsv-...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
Alvaro,
As I said, John’s suggestion is correct and it does match 7471, which is also
correct.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: Idr On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 5:16 PM
To: John Scudder
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; idr-cha...@ietf.org;
Hi,
Comments inline
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: Idr On Behalf Of John Scudder
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 4:34 PM
To: Alvaro Retana
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; idr@ietf. org ;
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-...@ietf.org; Hares Susan ;
idr-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] Available Bandwidth erratum
There is no virtually no difference between the two drafts in the way that
distributed mode works and your draft currently has no description of how
centralized mode works.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: Huaimo Chen
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 12:30 PM
To: John E Drake ; Robert Raszuk
: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 11:24 AM
To: John E Drake ; Robert Raszuk
Cc: tony...@tony.li; Acee Lindem (acee) ;
lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura ; Tony Przygienda
; Peter Psenak
Subject: RE: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward
Hi John,
See my comments inline below.
Best
Hi,
I have reviewed both of the flood reduction drafts and the draft referenced
below, draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02, seems to me to be a derivative
document inferior in quality to the draft, draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05, from
which it is derived. For example, the referenced draft fails
40 matches
Mail list logo
