Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-11.txt

2018-05-15 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Chris, On 15/05/18 10:54 , Christian Hopps wrote: Hi Les, I was going over the 2 SR-MSD documents (IS-IS and OSPF) just wondering how viable it would be and if we should combine them. In any case doing the diff highlighted a couple issues in the IS-IS version. Issue: Under both the Node

Re: [Lsr] IPR Poll for "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing" Prior to WG Last Call

2018-05-22 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Acee, I am not aware of any IPR on this draft other than ones that have been disclosed already. thanks, Peter On 22/05/18 16:43 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-12.txt? If so, has this IPR been

Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Last Call for "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing" - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-13

2018-05-24 Thread Peter Psenak
Support as co-author. Peter On 23/05/18 17:03 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: This begins an LSR WG last call for the subject draft. Please send your comments to this list prior to 12:00 AM GMT, June 7th, 2018. Thanks, Acee and Chris ___ Lsr

Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs

2018-05-18 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Chris, Acee, On 18/05/18 17:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: On May 18, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: To clarify, I think the win here is with clear and concise specifications, and avoiding double definitions of what is supposed to be the same thing -- not

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

2018-05-23 Thread Peter Psenak
I support publication. Peter On 23/05/18 17:28 , Christian Hopps wrote: Hi Folks, We're starting a 2 week WG Last Call on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis/ Please raise any objections or comments before Jun 6th, 2018. Thanks, Chris.

Re: [Lsr] OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement - draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-02

2018-06-18 Thread Peter Psenak
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. thanks, Peter On 18/06/18 17:24 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Authors, LSR WG, This mail is to start the Working Group Last Call IPR poll on the subject document. Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id?

Re: [Lsr] Flex Algorithms Drafts

2018-05-02 Thread Peter Psenak
Uma, On 02/05/18 06:06 , Uma Chunduri wrote: these are being renamed in the next update to: Flex-Algorithm - Single octet value between 128 and 255 inclusive IGP Alg. Type - Single octet. Value between 0 and 127 inclusive, that identifies IGP algorithm type used to compute

Re: [Lsr] Hi, Here are some clarification questions about the flex-algo draft.

2018-04-26 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi ZhiBo On 26/04/18 09:50 , Huzhibo wrote: Hi, Here are some clarification questions about the flex-algo draft. 1. As described in section 5, in path computation for a flex-algorithm, the node firstly needs to prune the links not included for this flex-algorithm, then run SPF or other

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement - draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-02

2018-06-19 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Acee, On 18/06/18 20:51 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Speaking as WG member, I support publication of the subject document. I have the following comments: 1. The normative text saying that the TLV MUST be included needs to be changed from section 3.1. I’m sure you didn’t mean this since

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

2018-08-24 Thread Peter Psenak
. thanks, Peter Cheers, Jeff On 8/23/18, 02:05, "Peter Psenak" wrote: Jeff, All, we have added many extensions to IGP protocols over the years. Many times multiple solutions were proposed for the same or similar problem and WG picked from the set, many time

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

2018-08-24 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Tony, On 24/08/18 17:03 , tony...@tony.li wrote: So, going Old Skool here: Since everyone agrees that this is a reasonable direction, how about we have a real discussion on the list? Requirement number 1 is straightforward: a significant reduction in flooding overhead. The basis for

Re: [Lsr] 答复: LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

2018-08-28 Thread Peter Psenak
:*Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net] *发送时间:*2018年8月28日0:57 *收件人:*Huaimo Chen *抄送:*tony...@tony.li; Acee Lindem (acee); lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura; Tony Przygienda; Peter Psenak *主题:*Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02 allows operators

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

2018-08-27 Thread Peter Psenak
Chris and All, On 27/08/18 14:10 , Christian Hopps wrote: On Aug 24, 2018, at 12:29 PM, tony...@tony.li wrote: Being distributed would be very nice. However, that implies that all nodes are going to get to the exact same solution. Which implies that they all must execute the same

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

2018-08-23 Thread Peter Psenak
Jeff, All, we have added many extensions to IGP protocols over the years. Many times multiple solutions were proposed for the same or similar problem and WG picked from the set, many times multiple solutions were merged or combined together. We never asked for a requirement document. Even for

Re: [Lsr] Concerns with draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing

2018-07-17 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Uma, On 17/07/18 08:56 , Uma Chunduri wrote: Hi Ketan, In-line [Uma]: -- Uma C. -Original Message- From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ket...@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 7:13 AM To: Uma Chunduri ; lsr@ietf.org Cc: spr...@ietf.org Subject: Concerns with

Re: [Lsr] 答复: 答复: 答复: Regarding OSPF extension for inter-area topology retrieval

2018-07-24 Thread Peter Psenak
:*Rob Shakir [mailto:r...@rob.sh] *发送时间:*2018年7月24日7:04 *收件人:*Peter Psenak *抄送:*Dongjie (Jimmy); cho...@chopps.org; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); Aijun Wang; lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee) *主题:*Re: [Lsr] 答复: 答复: Regarding OSPF extension for inter-area topology retrieval +1 to Peter. We should not de

Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF extension for inter-area topology retrieval

2018-07-23 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Aijun, you are trying to reconstruct the topology of the remote area based on the fact that two routers are connected to the same subnet. It does not work because: 1. connections between routers can be unnumbered 2. routers can be connected via LAN, in which case only DR announces the

Re: [Lsr] 答复: Regarding OSPF extension for inter-area topology retrieval

2018-07-23 Thread Peter Psenak
es not work. thanks, Peter > > Best Regards. > > Aijun Wang > Network R and Operation Support Department > China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China. > > -邮件原件- > 发件人: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak=40cisco@dmarc.iet

Re: [Lsr] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: Regarding OSPF extension for inter-area topology retrieval

2018-07-25 Thread Peter Psenak
ummary LSA. thanks, Peter Once finished, I will update the draft. RFC5392 and RFC5316 are for inter-AS TE extension, not inter-area scenario and solution that proposed in this draft. -邮件原件- 发件人: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ket...@cisco.com] 发送时间: 2018年7月24日 23:56 收件人: Acee Lindem

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-05.txt

2018-07-25 Thread Peter Psenak
here. This is really minor. I suppose you can fix it later with other comments if there is any. Thanks, Yingzhen On 7/18/18, 4:33 AM, "Lsr on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Intern

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-04 Shepherd review

2018-07-09 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Yingzhen, thanks for your review. As regards to first IDNITS warning, not sure about the first one, I took the section "Requirements Language" from RFC8395 as suggested by Loa. RFC2119 is only referenced there, that should not be a problem though. I removed the reference to ISO10589.

Re: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP

2018-03-01 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Dirk, On 01/03/18 17:05 , Dirk Goethals wrote: Hi, In OSPFv2 (and ISIS), we can add (RSVP) tunnels to the topology by adding them as a unnumbered link in the router lsa. In OSPFv3, we can only add a link to the router-lsa if the neighbor interface ID is known. So it looks like we can only

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG IPR Query for "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF" - draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-10.txt (one more @#$ time)

2018-04-09 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Acee, I'm not aware of any IPR related to this draft. thanks, Peter On 06/04/18 03:27 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Authors, Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-10.txt? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs

Re: [Lsr] Flex Algorithms Drafts

2018-04-12 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Acee, On 11/04/18 22:36 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: In preparation for WG adoption and IANA early code point allocation, I suggest that we rename the “Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Metric Registry” to the “Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Metric Type Registry” to avoid confusion as to

Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for Flex Algorithm Drafts

2018-04-20 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Dongjie, please see inline: On 20/04/18 05:04 , Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: Hi Peter, Thanks for the prompt response. Please see inline: -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 4:28 PM To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.

Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for Flex Algorithm Drafts

2018-04-20 Thread Peter Psenak
Dongjie, On 20/04/18 11:00 , Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: Hi Peter, Please see inline: -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 3:31 PM To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-12.txt

2018-04-20 Thread Peter Psenak
of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF. Title : OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing Authors : Peter Psenak Clarence Filsfils Stefano Previdi Hannes Gredler

Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for Flex Algorithm Drafts

2018-04-22 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Jie, On 21/04/18 05:26 , Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: Hi Peter, Please see inline: -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 5:34 PM To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf

Re: [Lsr] IPR for IS-IS and OSPF Flex Algorithm Drafts

2018-04-17 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Acee, there is pending IPR and the formal IETF IPR Disclosure will be filed soon. thanks, Peter On 17/04/18 17:16 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Authors, Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-algo and draft-ppsenak-ospf-sr-flex-algo? If so, has this IPR been

Re: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP

2018-03-01 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Acee, On 01/03/18 17:36 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Hi Dirk, My memory has faded somewhat on Forwarding Adjacency (FA) implementation. However, since basic MPLS LSPs are unidirectional, doesn’t the SPF two-way check have to be disabled anyway? If so, the Remote Interface ID doesn’t matter.

Re: [Lsr] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-16

2018-10-30 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Joe, thanks for your review, please see inline (##PP): On 26/10/18 21:42 , Joe Clarke wrote: Reviewer: Joe Clarke Review result: Has Nits I have been assigned to review draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions on behalf of the ops directorate. This document defines OSPFv3

Re: [Lsr] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-16

2018-10-31 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Joe, On 31/10/18 04:15 , Joe Clarke wrote: On 10/30/18 08:05, Peter Psenak wrote: I'm going to be pedantic here. According to RFC7770, when a new OSPF Router Information LSA TLV is defined, the spec needs to explicitly state if it's applicable to OSPFv2, v3, or both. While you reference

Re: [Lsr] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-16

2018-10-31 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Ben, Acee, On 31/10/18 02:16 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 03:33:21PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Hi Les, On 10/30/18, 11:15 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" wrote: Acee - > > Section 3.2 > > > > "When a router receives multiple

Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-08: (with COMMENT)

2018-10-31 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Ben, Acee, On 31/10/18 02:26 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 01:21:14AM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Hi Ben, On 10/30/18, 9:09 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk" wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 02:28:12PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-16

2018-11-05 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Yaron, thanks for your comments, please see inline: On 04/11/18 16:38 , Yaron Sheffer wrote: Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer Review result: Has Nits Summary: document has non-security related nits. Details * The definition of "segment" is different here from the one used in the architecture

Re: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels - draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-04.txt

2018-10-23 Thread Peter Psenak
Support. thanks, Peter On 23/10/18 00:25 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: This begins an LSR WG last call for the subject draft. Please send your comments to this list prior to 12:00 AM GMT, November 13^th , 2018. While its only an 8 page document, I added an extra week due to the IETF. Please let

Re: [Lsr] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-08: (with COMMENT)

2018-10-25 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Martin, I have addressed your comment, bu I'm unable to publish the updated version at this point as the submission is closed till November 3rd. thanks, Peter On 23/10/18 11:15 , Martin Vigoureux wrote: Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for

[Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions - small change

2018-11-15 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi, as a part of the RtgDir review we got a comment about the usage of the IA bit in the OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV (Section 5). We defined this bit for OSPFv2 originally. In OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Range TLV is carried as a top level TLV of the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA, which is not

Re: [Lsr] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-18

2018-11-16 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Pete, please see inline: On 16/11/18 14:45 , Pete Resnick wrote: Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review result: Ready with Issues I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.

Re: [Lsr] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-17.txt

2018-11-14 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Erik, On 14/11/18 14:24 , Erik Auerswald wrote: Hi Peter, please see inline (I have kept just the relevant part): On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 02:13:37PM +0100, Peter Psenak wrote: On 14/11/18 12:49 , Tomonori Takeda wrote: [...] 1) Flooding Scope of SR-Algorithm TLV In Section 4.1, it says

Re: [Lsr] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-17.txt

2018-11-14 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Tomonori, please see inline: On 14/11/18 12:49 , Tomonori Takeda wrote: Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and

Re: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q

2018-11-14 Thread Peter Psenak
Toerless, On 15/11/18 03:29 , Toerless Eckert wrote: Whats the current best guidance on using DSCP for selection of path, specifically for selection of topology with MTR (RFCs 4915, 5120, 7722) ? My understanding from history is that this looked like a good idea to customers first, but when

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-16

2018-11-09 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Yaron, On 06/11/18 07:13 , Yaron Sheffer wrote: Thank you Peter, this addresses my comments. latest version (17) includes your comments. thanks, Peter Yaron On 05/11/2018 10:12, Peter Psenak wrote: Hi Yaron, thanks for your comments, please see inline: On 04/11/18 16:38

Re: [Lsr] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-06

2018-10-10 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Sheng, posted a new version that addresses your comments. thanks, Peter On 10/10/18 05:47 , Sheng Jiang wrote: Reviewer: Sheng Jiang Review result: Has Nits Hi, OPS-DIR, Authors, I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF

Re: [Lsr] draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions: Locator Leaking

2019-01-16 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Cheng, On 17/01/2019 03:07 , Chengli (Cheng Li) wrote: Hi Authors, In chapter 6.1 of draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-04, it mentions that Locator TLV can be leaked from level-2 to level-1.(See D bit) I am wondering that 1: Does the Locator can be imported another protocol? Like

Re: [Lsr] draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions: Locator Leaking

2019-01-18 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Cheng, please see inline: On 18/01/2019 04:53 , Chengli (Cheng Li) wrote: Hi Peter, Thanks to your reply. Please see my reply inline [Cheng]. Thanks, Cheng -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 3:26 PM To: Chengli

Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2018-12-20 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Benjamin, are you ok with my responses and proposed changed text for the range? thanks, Peter On 17/12/2018 12:32 , Peter Psenak wrote: Hi Benjamin, please see inline (##PP): On 17/12/2018 06:53 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote: Sorry for the slow reply -- you caught me right as I was leaving

Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2018-12-22 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Benjamin, On 22/12/2018 05:29 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote: What about the following updated text in the OSPFv3 draft: "In some cases it is useful to advertise attributes for a range of prefixes. The Segment Routing Mapping Server, which is described in , is an example of where SIDs for multiple

Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2018-12-17 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Benjamin, please see inline (##PP): On 17/12/2018 06:53 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote: Sorry for the slow reply -- you caught me right as I was leaving for vacation. On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 09:53:20AM +0100, Peter Psenak wrote: Hi Benjamin, please see inline: On 05/12/18 04:44 , Benjamin Kaduk

Re: [Lsr] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with COMMENT)

2018-12-05 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Martin, On 04/12/18 10:49 , Martin Vigoureux wrote: Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and

Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2018-12-05 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Benjamin, please see inline: On 05/12/18 04:44 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote: Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology" - draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-07

2018-12-02 Thread Peter Psenak
Support. Peter On 02/12/18 01:54 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: This begins a two-week WG adoption call for the subject draft. As anyone who has been following the topic knows, there are a lot of proposal in this space. However, as WG co-chair, I believe this simple IS-IS extension doesn’t really

Re: [Lsr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-19: (with COMMENT)

2018-12-03 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Mirja, please see inline: On 03/12/18 15:42 , Mirja Kühlewind wrote: Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-19: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses

Re: [Lsr] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with COMMENT)

2018-12-06 Thread Peter Psenak
On 05/12/18 17:34 , Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: Hi, Acee, On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:37 PM Acee Lindem (acee) mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Spencer, I'm replying as document shepherd. It's a pleasure to be talking when we're not both sleepwalking on a 777 :-) Please note that

Re: [Lsr] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with COMMENT)

2018-12-06 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Suresh, please see inline: On 06/12/18 06:36 , Suresh Krishnan wrote: Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses

Re: [Lsr] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with COMMENT)

2018-12-06 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Suresh, On 06/12/18 16:07 , Suresh Krishnan wrote: On Dec 6, 2018, at 6:43 AM, Peter Psenak wrote: Hi Suresh, please see inline: On 06/12/18 06:36 , Suresh Krishnan wrote: Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-00 - Restart Signaling for IS-IS

2018-11-19 Thread Peter Psenak
I support this work. thanks, Peter On 19/11/18 23:22 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: The begins a Working Group Last Call for the subject document. Please post for review comments and/or support/objection to this document before 12:00 AM UTC on Tuesday, December 4^th , 2018. Other than some RFC

Re: [Lsr] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-16

2018-11-20 Thread Peter Psenak
h. Thanks!! Alvaro. [*] Except for the OSPFv3 being specifically called out, and a couple of other minor points. On October 30, 2018 at 8:05:27 AM, Peter Psenak (ppse...@cisco.com <mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>) wrote: > With respect to TLV types 8, 9, 14, and 15, they are defined in > d

Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2019-01-08 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Benjamin, please see inline: On 22/12/2018 15:34 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Hi Ben, See inline. On 12/21/18, 11:29 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk" wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 01:07:59PM +0100, Peter Psenak wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > > are you ok with my res

Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2019-01-08 Thread Peter Psenak
, Peter Psenak wrote: Hi Benjamin, please see inline: On 22/12/2018 15:34 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Hi Ben, See inline. On 12/21/18, 11:29 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk" wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 01:07:59PM +0100, Peter Psenak wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > > are you o

Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2019-01-08 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Benjamin, On 08/01/2019 17:16 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote: Well, there's a few options, and I don't want to try to dictate my preferences onto your document. What seems simplest to me would be to just bite the bullet and establish an IANA registry for these AF values, but if you wanted to do

Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2019-01-09 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Benjamin, On 08/01/2019 18:38 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote: On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 05:58:55PM +0100, Peter Psenak wrote: Hi Benjamin, On 08/01/2019 17:16 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote: Well, there's a few options, and I don't want to try to dictate my preferences onto your document. What seems

Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction

2019-04-04 Thread Peter Psenak
interfaces. To achieve 2 out with bidirectional, you need 3 in, 3 out, because the ins and outs are the same. Regards, Jakob. -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 12:28 AM To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) ; tony...@tony.li Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr

Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction

2019-04-04 Thread Peter Psenak
Jakob, given that there is a single flooding topology calculated for an area, I don't see how this can be unidirectional, considering that flooding topology is used to flood in any direction. thanks, Peter On 04/04/2019 08:26 , Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote: I mean flooding in one direction

Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction

2019-04-05 Thread Peter Psenak
: lsr@ietf.org; Jakob Heitz (jheitz) ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) Subject: RE: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction Dave - IGP flooding on a link is by specification bidirectional. It is OK if A arbitrarily decides not to initiate flooding an LSP to neighbor B, but the meaning of unidirectional flooding

Re: [Lsr] 答复: Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01

2019-02-18 Thread Peter Psenak
: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] 发送时间: 2019年2月18日 22:02 收件人: Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp); Acee Lindem (acee); lsr@ietf.org 主题: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01 On 18/02/2019 14:37

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding-02 + IPR poll.

2019-02-24 Thread Peter Psenak
Huaimo, On 24/02/2019 06:34 , Huaimo Chen wrote: Some issues with draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding-02 not fully addressed are briefed below. 1) There is no concrete procedure/method for fault tolerance to multiple failures. When multiple failures happen and split the flooding

Re: [Lsr] [spring] FlexAlgo and Global Adj-SIDs

2019-02-28 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Alexander, On 28/02/2019 19:19 , Alexander Vainshtein wrote: Dear colleagues, I have a question regarding global Adj-SIDs in draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions. Section 3.4 of RFC 8402 defines definition and handling of global Adj-SIDs. The

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding

2019-03-04 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Tony, On 04/03/2019 18:54 , tony...@tony.li wrote: Hello, There are still two issues that need to be discussed and I was hoping that we could make progress on the mailing list before Prague. 1) Temporary additions to the flooding topology There are several cases where we would like

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding

2019-03-05 Thread Peter Psenak
Xiaohu, On 05/03/2019 09:48 , 徐小虎(义先) wrote: Given that all links between routers are p2p these days, I would vote for simplicity and make the LAN always part of the FT. Even all links between routers are P2P these days, the network management LAN if available could be leveraged to

Re: [Lsr] [spring] FlexAlgo and Global Adj-SIDs

2019-03-05 Thread Peter Psenak
: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 5:28 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: lsr@ietf.org; spr...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] FlexAlgo and Global Adj-SIDs Hi Sasha, On 02/03/2019 18

Re: [Lsr] [spring] FlexAlgo and Global Adj-SIDs

2019-03-05 Thread Peter Psenak
by Sasha Vainshtein *From:* Peter Psenak *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2019 9:56:49 PM *To:* Alexander Vainshtein; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org; spr...@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [spring

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding

2019-03-05 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Tony, On 05/03/2019 17:16 , tony...@tony.li wrote: Peter, (a) Temporarily add all of the links that would appear to remedy the partition. This has the advantage that it is very likely to heal the partition and will do so in the minimal amount of convergence time. I prefer (a)

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding

2019-03-05 Thread Peter Psenak
sh (DC) case or sparse mesh (WAN) case or "every topology imaginable" since that drives lots design trade-offs. my 2.71828182 cents ;-) --- tony On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:27 AM Peter Psenak mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Tony, On 05/03/

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding

2019-03-05 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Tony, On 05/03/2019 17:47 , tony...@tony.li wrote: Hi Peter, Adding all links on a single node to the flooding topology is not going to cause issues to flooding IMHO. Could you (or John) please explain your rationale behind that? It seems counter-intuitive. it's limited to the links

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding

2019-03-05 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Tony, On 05/03/2019 21:47 , tony...@tony.li wrote: LS topologies can have a very large number of adjacencies as well, typically with multiple spines, so for a new spine, all of the of the links may be unnecessary. ok, we talked bout the balance before - adding one link at a time to the

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding

2019-03-05 Thread Peter Psenak
optimization. And if you are worried that you loose *wisely selected* all 4 paths before you manage to distribute new flooding topology you can always flood over 6 :) we want to limit the flooding to minimum, which is 2. thanks, Peter Best, R. On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 9:17 PM Peter Psenak

Re: [Lsr] Clarification on co-existance of dynamic flooding aware and not aware nodes

2019-03-07 Thread Peter Psenak
spec does not define any algorithm, not much can be said on top of that. thanks, Peter But spec seems quite silent on such deployment model hence the post. Thx, R. On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:11 PM Peter Psenak mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Robert, On 07/03/2019 12:00

Re: [Lsr] Clarification on co-existance of dynamic flooding aware and not aware nodes

2019-03-07 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Robert, On 07/03/2019 12:00 , Robert Raszuk wrote: Hi, My reading of draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding indicates that said document in number of places rather assumes that entire topology (entire instance) supports dynamic flooding (perhaps other then bootstrap phase). Let's observe that

Re: [Lsr] Temporary addition of links to flooding topology in dynamic flooding

2019-03-12 Thread Peter Psenak
ded. That should provide bi-connectivity again, if available. Temporary flooding is only triggered when node itself or its neighbor becomes isolated. thanks, Peter Many thx, R. On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 7:45 AM Peter Psenak mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Robert, On 11

Re: [Lsr] Multiple failures in Dynamic Flooding

2019-03-11 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Huaimo, On 11/03/2019 18:08 , Huaimo Chen wrote: Hi Tony, In summary for multiple failures, two issues below in draft-li-lsr-dynamyic-flooding are discussed: 1) how to determine the current flooding topology is split; and there is no need to do that. The recovery mechanism

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding

2019-03-07 Thread Peter Psenak
On 07/03/2019 18:16 , tony...@tony.li wrote: On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:31 PM, tony...@tony.li wrote: Let me propose that we add something to sections 6.7.5, 6.7.9, and 6.7.11 like: Addition of temporary flooding should be done with caution, as the addition of excessive

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01

2019-02-18 Thread Peter Psenak
that the prefixes belong to T1? that is exactly what this draft is trying to address. Today there is no way to determine the originator of the prefix in the remote area. We are adding that functionality in this draft. thanks, Peter Dirk On 2/18/2019 14:34, Peter Psenak wrote: Hi Dirk, On 18/02/2019 14

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01

2019-02-18 Thread Peter Psenak
the ABR installed a route. above is exactly right. thanks, Peter Dirk On 2/18/2019 14:15, Peter Psenak wrote: Support as coauthor, although I never really agreed with the usage of the prefix originator for topology construction as described in section 3 and 5. I would prefer that part

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01

2019-02-18 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Dirk, On 18/02/2019 14:27 , Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote: Hi Peter, See inline DG>. Dirk On 2/18/2019 14:18, Peter Psenak wrote: Hi Dirk, On 18/02/2019 09:31 , Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote: support +1 1 question: When S1 in another area receives such

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01

2019-02-18 Thread Peter Psenak
Support as coauthor, although I never really agreed with the usage of the prefix originator for topology construction as described in section 3 and 5. I would prefer that part to be removed. thanks, Peter On 13/02/2019 14:25 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: This begins a two week adoption poll

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01

2019-02-18 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Dirk, On 18/02/2019 09:31 , Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote: support +1 1 question: When S1 in another area receives such LSA, it then can learn that prefix Lt1 is associated with node T1, check the ELC, ERLD, or MSD value according to its necessity, and construct the

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

2019-02-18 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Huaimo, On 18/02/2019 16:28 , Huaimo Chen wrote: Hi Peter, -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] 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

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

2019-02-13 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Huaimo, On 13/02/2019 22:50 , Huaimo Chen wrote: Hi Peter, My explanations/answers are in line below with prefix [HC]. -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 4:58 AM To: Huaimo Chen ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; Christian

Re: [Lsr] IPR Poll on "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01

2019-02-10 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Acee, not aware of any IPR related to this draft. thanks, Peter On 08/02/2019 18:00 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Authors, In preparation for a WG adoption call: Are you aware of any IPR relating to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext? If so, has

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding-02 + IPR poll.

2019-02-11 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Chris, support as coauthor. Not aware of any IPR at this point. thanks, Peter On 11/02/2019 11:44 , Christian Hopps wrote: Hi Folks, We are starting a 2 week adoption call on draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding-02. The aim of this document is to describe the problem space and standardize a

Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV

2019-02-06 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Alex, I believe you are right in saying that the RFC 4203 defined Link Local Identifier sub-TLV of the Link Local TLV, but did not do any IANA registration for it. thanks, Peter On 05/02/2019 20:40 , Alexander Okonnikov wrote: Hi Acee, Yes, RFC 8510 provides alternative mechanism, but

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

2019-02-06 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Huaimo, On 03/02/2019 17:58 , Huaimo Chen wrote: Hi Acee, I agree with you on keeping the signaling for two modes. The other parts for the distributed solution need to be removed. There are no "other" parts specific for the distributed solution. draft-li-dyanmic-flooding defines:

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

2019-02-06 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Robert, On 03/02/2019 21:37 , Robert Raszuk wrote: I fully agree and support proceeding with draft-li-dyanmic-flooding and to include protocol extensions in it for centralized topology propagation as well as basic hooks like "execute dynamic protocol number X" for distributed calculations.

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

2019-02-01 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Chris, sounds good to me. thanks, Peter On 01/02/2019 13:25 , Christian Hopps wrote: Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction: - We have a well written original work that came first and described the problems as well as a TLVs to allow for a centralized solution

Re: [Lsr] IPR Poll for "IS-IS TE Attributes per application" - draft-ietf-isis-te-app-06.txt (adding contributors)

2019-04-11 Thread Peter Psenak
I am not aware of any relevant IPR. Peter On 10/04/2019 23:35 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Authors, Contributors, Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-isis-te-app-06.txt? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and

Re: [Lsr] IPR Poll for "OSPF Link Traffic Engineering (TE) Attribute Reuse" - draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-07.txt

2019-04-11 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Acee, I'm not aware of any relevant IPR. thanks, Peter On 11/04/2019 18:09 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Authors, Contributors, Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-07? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Link Traffic Engineering (TE) Attribute Reuse" - draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-07.txt

2019-04-15 Thread Peter Psenak
n what you measure. thanks, Peter Kind regards, R. On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:49 AM Peter Psenak mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Olivier, On 12/04/2019 16:26 , olivier.dug...@orange.com <mailto:olivier.dug...@orange.com> wrote: > Hello Peter, > &

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Link Traffic Engineering (TE) Attribute Reuse" - draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-07.txt

2019-04-15 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Olivier, On 12/04/2019 16:26 , olivier.dug...@orange.com wrote: Hello Peter, Le 12/04/2019 à 15:27, Peter Psenak a écrit : Hi Oliver, There are two major purposes served by the drafts: 1)Support of incongruent topologies for different applications Don't understand. What do you mean

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Link Traffic Engineering (TE) Attribute Reuse" - draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-07.txt

2019-04-12 Thread Peter Psenak
Hi Oliver, There are two major purposes served by the drafts: 1)Support of incongruent topologies for different applications 2)Advertisement of application specific values even on links that are in use by multiple applications These issues are clearly articulated in the Introductions of both

  1   2   3   4   >