Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

2020-08-12 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Tony, Sarah, On 10/08/2020 18:00, tony...@tony.li wrote: Hi Peter, The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC7810 ]". When reading RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs: 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

2020-08-10 Thread tony . li
Hi Peter, The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC7810 ]". When reading RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs: 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

2020-08-10 Thread Sarah Chen
Thank you, Peter, for the clarification. It would be nice to add a reference to the section number Section 4.2 . Thanks, Sarah On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 8:56 AM Peter Psenak wrote: > Hi Tony, > > On 10/08/2020 16:21, tony...@tony.li wrote: > > >

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

2020-08-10 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Tony, On 10/08/2020 16:21, tony...@tony.li wrote: Hi Peter, The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC7810 ]". When reading RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs: 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

2020-08-10 Thread tony . li
Hi Peter, >> The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in >> [RFC7810 > >]". When reading RFC7810, I found two >> Sub-TLVs: >> 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

2020-08-10 Thread Peter Psenak
Tony, ok, seems like Gunter and you share the same concerns. Will clarify the two points discussed. thanks, Peter On 07/08/2020 17:30, tony...@tony.li wrote: Peter, . The existing description in section 5.1 indicate that legacy encoding (RFC7810 and RFC5305) is used for link

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

2020-08-10 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Sarah, On 08/08/2020 01:33, Sarah Chen wrote: Hi, Peter, The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [RFC7810 ]". When reading RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs: 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

2020-08-07 Thread Sarah Chen
Hi, Peter, The flex-algo draft mentions "Min Unidirectional Link Delay as defined in [ RFC7810 ]". When reading RFC7810, I found two Sub-TLVs: 4.1. Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV 4.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-TLV Could you please clarify

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

2020-08-07 Thread tony . li
Peter, >> . The existing description in section 5.1 indicate that legacy encoding >> (RFC7810 and RFC5305) is used for link attributes. That is not correct based >> upon section 11. To avoid ambiguity can an explicit reference be added for >> [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]? > > > well, section

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

2020-08-07 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Gunter, On 06/08/2020 19:11, Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote: Thanks for the clarification and fast answer. Indeed FAD does not encode any attributes. That was not the point I was trying to make. . The existing description in section 5.1 indicate that legacy encoding

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

2020-08-06 Thread Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
Thanks for the clarification and fast answer. Indeed FAD does not encode any attributes. That was not the point I was trying to make. .. The existing description in section 5.1 indicate that legacy encoding (RFC7810 and RFC5305) is used for link attributes. That is not correct based upon

Re: [Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

2020-08-06 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Gunter, On 06/08/2020 18:31, Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote: Hi Authors, All, My understanding is that for new LSR applications we should select either “ASLA encoding” or select “legacy encoding” for all Link attributes. Not a mixture of both. There is a clear long term

[Lsr] [draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08] Clarification on ASLA usage for flex-algo

2020-08-06 Thread Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
Hi Authors, All, My understanding is that for new LSR applications we should select either "ASLA encoding" or select "legacy encoding" for all Link attributes. Not a mixture of both. There is a clear long term technology benefit of using all ASLA encoding. In draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-08

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-07-01 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Bruno, please see inline: On 30/06/2020 18:39, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Hi Peter, From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Hi Bruno, On 30/06/2020 18:08, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Hi Peter, Thanks for your reply. From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Hi

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-06-30 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Speaking as WG chair: I'm delighted to see discussion on a draft that isn't in WG last call. Speaking as WG member: Maybe I'm missing something but do we really think we’re going to run out of non-flexible algorithms with 128? I just don't see it happening in my lifetime. Thanks, Acee

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-06-30 Thread bruno.decraene
Hi Peter, > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > > Hi Bruno, > > On 30/06/2020 18:08, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > Thanks for your reply. > > > >> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > >> > >> Hi Bruno, > >> > >> please see inline: > >> > >> On

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-06-30 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Bruno, On 30/06/2020 18:08, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Hi Peter, Thanks for your reply. From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Hi Bruno, please see inline: On 30/06/2020 16:53, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Hi all, I can live with the current text, but I'm just

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-06-30 Thread bruno.decraene
Hi Peter, Thanks for your reply. > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > > Hi Bruno, > > please see inline: > > On 30/06/2020 16:53, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I can live with the current text, but I'm just raising the point for > > discussion > (better

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-06-30 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Bruno, please see inline: On 30/06/2020 16:53, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Hi all, I can live with the current text, but I'm just raising the point for discussion (better safe than sorry). "16.1.1. IGP Algorithm Types Registry This document makes the following registrations in

[Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-06-30 Thread bruno.decraene
Hi all, I can live with the current text, but I'm just raising the point for discussion (better safe than sorry). "16.1.1. IGP Algorithm Types Registry This document makes the following registrations in the "IGP Algorithm Types" registry: Type: 128-255. Description: Flexible

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-05-20 Thread Gyan Mishra
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 4:16 AM Peter Psenak wrote: > On 20/05/2020 00:37, Gyan Mishra wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 3:38 AM Peter Psenak > > wrote: > > > > Gyan, > > > > On 19/05/2020 03:52, Gyan Mishra wrote: > > > > > > Flex algo

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-05-20 Thread Peter Psenak
On 20/05/2020 00:37, Gyan Mishra wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 3:38 AM Peter Psenak > wrote: Gyan, On 19/05/2020 03:52, Gyan Mishra wrote: > > Flex algo is usually mentioned in the context of SR-TE to help reduced > SRH size to

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-05-19 Thread Gyan Mishra
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 3:38 AM Peter Psenak wrote: > Gyan, > > On 19/05/2020 03:52, Gyan Mishra wrote: > > > > Flex algo is usually mentioned in the context of SR-TE to help reduced > > SRH size to circumvent MSD issues for both SRV6 and SR-MPLS, > > though segment list reduction may be seen as

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-05-19 Thread Peter Psenak
Gyan, On 19/05/2020 03:52, Gyan Mishra wrote: Flex algo is usually mentioned in the context of SR-TE to help reduced SRH size to circumvent MSD issues for both SRV6 and SR-MPLS, though segment list reduction may be seen as one of the benefits of the flex-algo, it is certainly not the

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-05-18 Thread Gyan Mishra
> Cheers! > > > > Wang Weibin > > > > *From:* Jeff Tantsura > *Sent:* 2020年5月10日 3:24 > *To:* Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) > *Cc:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; lsr@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo > > > > Weibin, > >

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-05-09 Thread Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
Jeff, I see what you said, thank you for sharing information; Cheers! Wang Weibin From: Jeff Tantsura Sent: 2020年5月10日 3:24 To: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo Weibin, One could have an algo with MSD

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-05-09 Thread Jeff Tantsura
> Thanks, > Ketan > > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) > Sent: 08 May 2020 19:07 > To: lsr@ietf.org > Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo > > Hi authors: > > After reading through this draft lsr-flex-algo, I want to know whether ther

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-05-09 Thread Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
�C same applies to SR-MPLS where the label stack can be reduced. Thanks, Ketan From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) Sent: 08 May 2020 19:07 To: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo Hi authors: A

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-05-09 Thread Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Hi Wang, You are correct. Though I wouldn't call it a goal but rather a benefit/advantage - same applies to SR-MPLS where the label stack can be reduced. Thanks, Ketan From: Lsr On Behalf Of Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) Sent: 08 May 2020 19:07 To: lsr@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf

[Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

2020-05-08 Thread Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)
Hi authors: After reading through this draft lsr-flex-algo, I want to know whether there is a potential goal of this draft to reduce the SRH size with enabling flex-algo with admin group in SRv6 deployment, because without flex-algo we have to have a big SRH size when the SRH include more SRv6