Dear LSR WG chairs,
I am hereby requesting a slot for LSR WG @IETF101 to present subject draft.
At the core of the proposed framework for the control plane of BIER-TE is
a proposed topology model for BIER-TE to allow path calculation (and other
consistency calculation) - distributed through the
ess,
>
> Unfortunately, we have a very full agenda already and are not taking
> additional presentation for IETF 101. Additionally, you're going to need to
> present it in TEAS anyway due to their mandate...
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> ???On 3/6/18, 4:56 PM, "Lsr on beha
d. And when other agree and we codify
that, then that would not exclude the option for new work (like what
Peter may have in mind) to superceed that recommendation.
Cheers
Toerless
> Cheers,
> R.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:22 AM Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
&g
t the network layer is
>able to choose which topology to use for each packet"
>
> IGP WGs have never attempted to recommend (let alone normatively define) any
> relationship between DSCP and MT.
>
> ???
>
>Les
>
> > -Original Message-
> >
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:14:45AM -0800, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> P.S. in my previous life, working on 5G transport slicing (yes, i know :))
> - i needed per slice identity over the common transport, we ended up
> looking at UDP port ranges, rather than DSCP - too few bits
Right. The main issue is
Nov 2018 at 16:07 Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> > > And btw I read Peter's note as possibility (or invitation) to define
> > > algorithm which takes into account DSCP rather then a announcement that
> > > this is not there and it should never be.
> >
> >
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 implementations became available,
customers really did not
