Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-10-20 Thread Peter Psenak
Bruno, On 20/10/2020 14:47, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Peter, From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Bruno, please see inline: On 20/10/2020 11:43, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Peter, From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Bruno, On 19/10/2020 18:52,

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-10-20 Thread bruno.decraene
Peter, > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > > Bruno, > > please see inline: > > > > On 20/10/2020 11:43, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Peter, > > > >> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > >> > >> Bruno, > >> > >> On 19/10/2020 18:52, bruno.decra...@orange.com

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-10-20 Thread Peter Psenak
Bruno, please see inline: On 20/10/2020 11:43, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Peter, From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Bruno, On 19/10/2020 18:52, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Ron, all, >From a use case standpoint, I have a use case for having both SR-MPLS and IP

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-10-20 Thread bruno.decraene
Peter, > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > > Bruno, > > On 19/10/2020 18:52, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Ron, all, > > > >>From a use case standpoint, I have a use case for having both SR-MPLS and > IP flexalgo in the same network. > > > >>From a protocol standpoint, I

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-10-19 Thread Peter Psenak
Bruno, On 19/10/2020 18:52, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Ron, all, From a use case standpoint, I have a use case for having both SR-MPLS and IP flexalgo in the same network. From a protocol standpoint, I think that the functionality could be equally met by advertising SR-MPLS SID as

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-10-19 Thread bruno.decraene
Ron, all, >From a use case standpoint, I have a use case for having both SR-MPLS and IP >flexalgo in the same network. >From a protocol standpoint, I think that the functionality could be equally >met by advertising SR-MPLS SID as per RFC 8667 but using a label 3 (implicit >null) to instruct

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-10-01 Thread Ron Bonica
, September 29, 2020 10:05 AM To: Ron Bonica Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt [External Email. Be cautious of content] Ron, This is nice. It makes it clear that constraint based path computation need not have MPLS overhead for those

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-10-01 Thread Ron Bonica
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt [External Email. Be cautious of content] Ron - Interesting proposal. A few mundane - but I think still important - comments. New IS-IS TLVs There is no need to have two TLVs for each address

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-10-01 Thread Peter Psenak
t;mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> >      >     <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org> <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>>>] >     On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern >      >     Sent: Wednesd

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-30 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Ron - Interesting proposal. A few mundane - but I think still important - comments. New IS-IS TLVs There is no need to have two TLVs for each address-family - one for MTID #0 and one for all non-zero MTIDs. One TLV/AF will suffice. The reason we have separate TLVs today

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-30 Thread Robert Raszuk
t; For details about the method defined in RFC 6550. It > > uses the > > > HBH option to carry the RPLInstaceID. The RPLInstaceID and > > > FlexAlgoID are similar. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > >

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-30 Thread Peter Psenak
.@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>>] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern >     Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 12:05 PM >     Cc: lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> <mailto:lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> >     Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Vers

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-30 Thread Dongjie (Jimmy)
: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 3:28 PM To: Huzhibo mailto:huzh...@huawei.com>> Cc: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>; Joel M. Halpern mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt Hi, > It uses the HBH op

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-30 Thread Robert Raszuk
> > > > Thanks > > > > Zhibo > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org > > <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern > > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 12:05

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-30 Thread Peter Psenak
lto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 12:05 PM Cc: lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt I am missing some

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-30 Thread Peter Psenak
0 10:05 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt Ron, This is nice. It makes it clear that constraint based path computation need not have MPLS overhead for those that don’t want it. One thing that you don’t talk ab

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-30 Thread Robert Raszuk
; > Zhibo > > -Original Message- > From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 12:05 PM > Cc: lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for > draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > &

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Huzhibo
, September 30, 2020 12:05 PM Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt I am missing something in this discussion of multiple algorithms. My understanding of flex-algo whether for MPLS, SRv6, SRH, or IPv6, is that you need to associated

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Joel M. Halpern
th a given prefix. Thanks ZHibo -Original Message- From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 10:05 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt Ron, Th

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Huzhibo
[mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 10:05 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt Ron, This is nice. It makes it clear that constraint based path computation need

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-29 Thread Jia Chen
Not sure whether the use case that the underlay network and the overlay network that belong to two different administrations is within this scope ? or has it already been covered by some other draft or RFCs? Assuming there are multiple underlay paths from A to B. Overlay would like to influence

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt

2020-09-29 Thread tony . li
Ron, This is nice. It makes it clear that constraint based path computation need not have MPLS overhead for those that don’t want it. One thing that you don’t talk about is how this gets used, tho that may be blindingly obvious: you’ll need all nodes placing their prefixes in the RIB/FIB,