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,
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
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
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
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
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
> > >
> >
.@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
: 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
> >
> > 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
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
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
;
> 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
>
&
, 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
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
[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
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
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,
22 matches
Mail list logo
