IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] Re: AD evaluation review of draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-15

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Fri, 05 September 2025 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
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 DB61C5E389B2; Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=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 2iYiFeCQ2D06; Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1EED5E389AD; Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (172-125-100-52.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [172.125.100.52]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 086A21E008; Fri, 5 Sep 2025 17:26:30 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.10\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+-tSzxbxH702GJ_e0L8-X1dtvGD5TAJKyEQos1Wh=gk5wNswg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2025 17:26:29 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CD4D4C3F-8BDA-43B2-B27E-D122A867EE66@pfrc.org>
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> <CA+-tSzxbxH702GJ_e0L8-X1dtvGD5TAJKyEQos1Wh=gk5wNswg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.10)
Message-ID-Hash: VVR7XU6PMLLBCRGHOSGRGWWORT5V6H6W
X-Message-ID-Hash: VVR7XU6PMLLBCRGHOSGRGWWORT5V6H6W
X-MailFrom: jhaas@pfrc.org
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/it9nlbBIlyU0VBB_8p0dr4dAzLg>
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>

Anoop,


> On Sep 5, 2025, at 3:18 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
> 
> 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.

The draft is focused on encoding a metric tied to a bandwidth semantic.  We've done our best to avoid some of the "how must this be used" conversations, partially because many of the ECMP behaviors are implementation and configuration specific.

Some of the BESS discussion overlaps the use case aspects.  Those sort of documents are a good place for how this feature can be used.

-- Jeff

v2.34.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status