[bess] Re: [Idr] Re: Do we need yet another link bandwidth community?

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Reshma, Ketan and Jie,

I want to know the specific scenario to be addressed. For UCMP traffic steering, the current bandwidth utilization is more important than the link bandwidth, in my opinion.



Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
[e-mail]
 
From: Dongjie \(Jimmy\)
Date: 2024-07-25 13:10
To: Reshma Das; Ketan Talaulikar; idr@ietf. org; [e-mail]
CC: BESS; [e-mail]; Jeff Haas; Susan Hares
Subject: [Idr] Re: Do we need yet another link bandwidth community?
Hi Reshma and Ketan, 
 
It is good to see the link-bandwidth extended community in draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth is updated to support both transitive and non-transitive use cases. The limitation with non-transitive was one of the reasons of introducing the new extended community in draft-li-idr-link-bandwidth-ext. 
 
Another important reason is the 32-bit floating point format of bandwidth may cause confusion/complexity in configuration and management, and it could be worse if the link bandwidth value is used for some route-policy matching, as the precision of 32-bit floating point value would be a problem for exact match. 
 
It would be helpful if operators could share their experience with the link bandwidth extended community. 
 
-Jie
 
________________________________________
From: Reshma Das <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2024 9:00
To: Ketan Talaulikar; idr@ietf. org; [e-mail]
Cc: BESS; [e-mail]; Jeff Haas; Susan Hares
Subject: Re: [Idr] Do we need yet another link bandwidth community?
 
Hi Ketan,
 
I agree we don’t need yet another new draft to carry LBW community.
 
As we know the base draft(draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth) is being revived to support both transitive and non-transitive use cases. This was presented in Mondays IDR session: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePPCAPOSQfM)
 
It is worth updating the base draft as a single source of truth to accommodate all use cases. That provides the most interop.
 
Since this is an effort initiated by IDR chairs, you are more than welcome to contribute to this effort as part the IDR WG.
 
Thanks & Regards,
Reshma Das
 
 
 
 
 
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 at 2:57 PM
To: idr@ietf. org <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: BESS <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] Do we need yet another link bandwidth community?
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
 
Hello All,
 
Checking on the need for draft-li-idr-link-bandwidth-ex when we already have the EVPN Link Bandwidth Extended Community (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb). Is it because of the name containing "EVPN" or am I missing something?
 
If it is just the name, I hope we still have the time to change it in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb?
 
We already have 2 types (ignoring the transitive/non-transitive variants) and I hope we can avoid the need for a third one ...
 
Thanks,
Ketan
 
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]