[Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-15
Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Fri, 05 September 2025 19:18 UTC
Return-Path: <ghanwani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E296C5E20D84; Fri, 5 Sep 2025 12:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.877
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.017, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r7nE2t3vXndq; Fri, 5 Sep 2025 12:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f46.google.com (mail-io1-f46.google.com [209.85.166.46]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73A825E20D76; Fri, 5 Sep 2025 12:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f46.google.com with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-8874def0cf1so118064539f.1; Fri, 05 Sep 2025 12:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1757099910; x=1757704710; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=MwqcD4qHDuTFB2IKd26UsyvvSIspEiq2GfeGQiFF4Og=; b=TKBoX31UEaOJLjcqc5yX47g+CkOUPX6gZklfc5TVu7AQKX9jCqBhm2yBFM21XnM8qj VV+f/hh152om4MLeGL6AXI7FfSXaAgYIwSIw3UlphAxlvlrDeVaU4/jxGVaBf2C5zaPz uCMQVthreNkoJtax1G6H+Lc0bUCeBRjjgxv/U4NDaQcsOrqzB0Zaev3HD/ch6rwepSX5 a5NTOO/sQPYMlwp+iTB+Mk7hN40YuOQbpxPru7JGuRtjDqAChARYR5gIrpeDNTloQcp9 zTBQv94Mt/YqK/KraQ9tSORnyTwx0EpVsEqkvWzNosrO8YonkOcOYuregwvJSR1gDr92 EhBA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX5HQ2AHuIuWosx42uJxxkQaHKYWr6I1FEwP2arkoSHu3ORF/5mtCEucjMCNPg/9ln8YDpFHccloyPU6oZ0HH94JPrOtcMVwR4VTxTInA==@ietf.org, AJvYcCXhEtR8ljExfPkGGsz1sMjBsDB7DEwNPynrXdo6Jk2N09M9Z7aqZArC6a/AqH4maZ88eYkv@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxqrZqWLLkkrrVkYL5TdK7WGWfgWuE5H2Gu0aX4IqjnmsBhl9Y1 woc3sNSatucwNVHZjn4xpnNtDADq0MaqaG29kt6J4a1GjXyQqt4rIYlIecO6kkOP3/RtHS57Q0L YYSnMy1L5DVvaL2/mIV1XvJiDtg0Ox1I=
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvOcTEDa9/QqpmAMw004e6X4QyIVHhscrrs4P6hY7T/kfuzaiD2f9rvuWygmae DaPfCcPPeKrwLAMLmPbzQB9UBi8w0SmRY8kCvlWlu+b1wFyVfBH9Uy8WpG8AFNSI+m8CiErm8b0 XrnN0NrCZQd/QE1+iWo47NTLJ6wbai869O8bXhYRQ7Zl2JEwuxrMTFVpYF4g1THITnnLtfqUcil F1DyA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEefzLrXQvgOSBMyOGrMqxNbO68kKSRDK5x/Gm3VI3xM3IATu6/errFZrxh82qXOWMt118vhQHZST42+tbNNpk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:b28:b0:3e5:5937:e559 with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-3fd7db9904emr2735865ab.2.1757099909823; Fri, 05 Sep 2025 12:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH6gdPxO0sOZkho0nUo5YvtM1AhuReixD0b_G8KqTOZ0=Pn=zQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMHVVGeRziME7GPtGPQk0o3+f-F_7KO9Zi4u2v-bcn161A@mail.gmail.com> <CAH6gdPzSsL3hSdEeTitQtt_FFTKRObF1021hUuA=h7Dk_2z=+g@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMEPM3T01+23UD1RNyiQv6kscE6FqeGwZkNPTjD4Q56onA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMEPM3T01+23UD1RNyiQv6kscE6FqeGwZkNPTjD4Q56onA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2025 12:18:18 -0700
X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXwwukgVx1uHHLsQcHfmPL54ch6wnyPCQ1HRLuDHAYj5Y5PdVeN8zTZzchQ
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzxbxH702GJ_e0L8-X1dtvGD5TAJKyEQos1Wh=gk5wNswg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f5c537063e12b3fb"
Message-ID-Hash: 6MS363IZUTN3PHXDYQ5EA2EYSC52AKL2
X-Message-ID-Hash: 6MS363IZUTN3PHXDYQ5EA2EYSC52AKL2
X-MailFrom: ghanwani@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth@ietf.org, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-15
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/61ZFFRDhZi0H_Z-VEHRcaGNCTmY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:idr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:idr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:idr-leave@ietf.org>
Is there an RFC that defines what weighted ECMP and/or UCMP are? Searching around on the net it looks like there are at least some vendor docs that use the term interchangeably (and explicitly state so). If there is a difference between the two and we want this draft to be used for both, then perhaps all instances of WECMP in the draft would need to be revisited for consistency. Thanks, Anoop On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 1:06 AM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote: > Perfect on both points raised. > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 6:16 AM Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Robert/Authors, >> >> Perhaps: >> This document specifies a type of BGP Extended Community that enables >> routers to perform >> weighted load-balancing in multipath scenarios. >> >> Thanks, >> Ketan >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 12:09 AM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>>> 19 Abstract >>>> >>>> 21 This document describes an application of BGP extended communities >>>> 22 that allows a router to perform WECMP (Weighted Equal-Cost >>>> 23 Multipath). >>>> >>>> <major> The document is actually specifying a new BGP extended >>>> community. >>>> >>>> SUGGEST: >>>> This document specifies a BGP Extended Community that enables routers >>>> to perform >>>> weighted equal-cost multipath (WECMP). >>>> >>> >>> This document defines a new type not BGP Extended Community as an >>> attribute. I actually find the original text more correct. >>> >>> Actually while we are at this sentence I would like to point out that it >>> can be also useful to perform unequal-cost multipath. >>> >>> Especially with encapsulation and EPE the cost to more then one egress >>> does not need to be equal for multipath. That's legacy for hop by hop IP >>> lookup networks which is rather gone these days. >>> >>> Thx, >>> Robert >>> >> _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list -- idr@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to idr-leave@ietf.org >
- [Idr] AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-link… Ketan Talaulikar
- [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-… Robert Raszuk
- [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-… Ketan Talaulikar
- [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-… Robert Raszuk
- [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-… Anoop Ghanwani
- [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-… Robert Raszuk
- [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-… Jeffrey Haas
- [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-… Reshma Das
- [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-… Ketan Talaulikar
- [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-… Jeffrey Haas
- [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-… Ketan Talaulikar
- [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-… Jeffrey Haas
- [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-… Robert Raszuk
- [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-… Ketan Talaulikar
- [Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-… Robert Raszuk