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

[Akshay Gattani <[e-mail]>]

On the topic of whether draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth and
draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz should be merged, I share Jeff's view on this.

It makes sense to maintain draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz as a separate draft.
draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz mostly talks about operational
scenarios/topologies in which cumulative LBW or LBW derived from
aggregation (divide equal, divide ratio, etc) is needed and how this can be
affected. I think these use-case details and operational considerations are
of importance independent of the protocol procedures defined in
draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth.

It seems fine to move this to IDR. It does seem like aggregate LBW has wide
feature support across vendors, adoption across operators and the use-cases
have matured. So elevating this to a BCP (from informational) would be a
reasonable progression.

Thanks

On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 2:15 PM Reshma Das <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 <[e-mail]>
>
> *Date:* 2025-07-25 16:51
>
> *To:* idr <[e-mail]>
>
> *CC:* draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth
> <[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]
>
>