[Idr] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth (Ending 1 August, 2025)

[Reshma Das <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zhenqiang Li,

Thank you for reviewing the draft.
The draft does not intend to specify the precise traffic engineering algorithms to use for load balancing calculations. It defines the normative protocol procedures that BGP speakers implement to support the Link Bandwidth Extended Community (LBW) in an interoperable manner.

The actual distribution of traffic such as the exact proportions or weighting algorithm is left to implementations and local policies. Because this is a special case, where we are documenting and making minimal changes to an existing draft for interoperability. And we cannot assume/document what algorithm each implementation uses today, though "using the LBW to determine WECMP ratio" is the typical usage.
Therefore, while the draft does not spell out how to achieve maximum utilization in algorithmic detail, it does establish the necessary BGP protocol procedures for LBW interop.
Thanks & Regards,
Reshma Dasx`



Juniper Business Use Only
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, August 1, 2025 at 10:14 PM
To: Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth (Ending 1 August, 2025)
[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hello Jeff, Authors, and all,

I believe the following issue should be addressed before moving the document to the next stage.

In the introduction section, it is stated that the Link Bandwidth Extended Community is used to facilitate the maximum utilization of network resources. However, there is no content in the document explaining how this goal can be achieved. Do BGP speakers require any specific behaviors to handle the Link Bandwidth Extended Community?

Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
________________________________
[e-mail]

From: Jeffrey Haas<mailto:[e-mail]>
Date: 2025-07-25 16:51
To: idr<mailto:[e-mail]>
CC: draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth (Ending 1 August, 2025)
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 11:01:03AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DxZQHO4arKy5Fg7Y7H1yc6zL1U9bBV_vmy-xXoAIg8wjjWxDxzdiIBU0Uo--hLMQY-qFY_79_l8rREVTO4Y2H6Hc2A$> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DxZQHO4arKy5Fg7Y7H1yc6zL1U9bBV_vmy-xXoAIg8wjjWxDxzdiIBU0Uo--hLMQY-qFY_79_l8rREVTO4Y2H6Hc2A$>>
>
> This begins the working group last call for the link bandwidth extended community draft.  Thanks to the authors for working their way through the substantive items that have been obstacles to interoperability over the years.
>
> This last call ends a week after IETF 123 to give the working group time to review and also take advantage of the focus time that IETF meeting weeks bring to our work.

Note that there's one more week for last call support/not-support comments.

At the moment, the related discussion about merging the BESS documents has
mixed feedback.  Please also consider commenting on that point.

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]