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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 05 September 2025 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 913E95E25308 for <idr@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Sep 2025 12:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 XgBgHHY4Skph for <idr@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Sep 2025 12:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62f.google.com (mail-ej1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62f]) (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 4E8715E252F8 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Sep 2025 12:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-b0418f6fc27so403119066b.3 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Sep 2025 12:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; t=1757101466; x=1757706266; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=OPCOK+ZfO1H9DPUhA3Lzt7e0YnhyGwhpJnGiy6lzZd4=; b=XOA8ZmoJaabkJNRfEXWWk1+BroM42wvo9MEer5s3CrpCgXolZLnhdJyLewiYS3WgH3 +shyNu6o5tDuK+SK47Vlr1PtN6MBuF7iV8M2C3fKlpZt3juUNm7fvvrNozvNkEbTzIv6 9uFT3n5vJCMgU8PIRnqHCz4+egS8FDRyb0rlLYZerMkw9LsI9HJiV0B0/TwGj/r68bQn qt9yrMgUIO7ItuEmRbund+vRrdwvqIxn5dJCm74ueW8iSwqF7IyvEAtnx1LH9yUlcUca KX1LwgGVokAmLOK6LEuq/Xl3rBrhCyqg74+Gupwn9IjvcMvPYeJT5M9FAY9Zv4qbXdK0 Ol+Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1757101466; x=1757706266; 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=OPCOK+ZfO1H9DPUhA3Lzt7e0YnhyGwhpJnGiy6lzZd4=; b=ey7G4JV6Ir9NCySqM/C2fFmJlq4Bfjq28+KlX235+ScoyoBKpq5Iy5Kd6MQF/7mk/K piaxPVJiZMPizh+xLksOJd3xxBsGf5PZVYZMMmoKyJVTiV1QVTZ3Ln1zb1FCPRKeODB1 WZqyNQpMlvThv40XEviSu+W/Lfcief+nuvW2OJJeeEhpdVWO8pYHFV/b9VNhnwYtMXQm w+lmm5BLNxjYGJ6S8LcIGT3KhDvKg79h3pc2i61/IfXdfs8CUYIB4Db7foIowyZsdCi6 9Za8N9xAL/OhMJCMEWHOn5kty2PxhKdayQiWyARaG6hRCQ4Q1NksXcsxwHQTsygLEkgz 8Jug==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX4KAkfc+2BdpOjpFd05FjxB2SN4OjbmZQk86DK4SfQG9lft+q0RG4ZlHY2GtU/zdRIvSc=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzmqT1cJqVmhHyMdzn2t33UqN6Vkl7+n2AI3VEbWmq0cPC+BFo5 tT7RLpe3GQ2V04xIE0V9UIXur3tc001cB3KElebBkVVmyrBseHxaAR8EFByiRVe/CZ84sF06pOo k0/Oq88ltrMqId+eGaaWT0IEFJIkkWEePNIFQ4AtM8g==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctW4gvw2gTtmRGpSxLpnsLvYyp7FijQo17Xp4qQiItH7wccdLXQdB/gu0OuGUy YR+4dtKNHbY5a3qnOQ0FFXxSHm0e/50HMrsw40+uL7CWwmdXlZKBh+OTY4H703DmPHTiAsVE3H6 zeXfM/zw2Yx/52F6O8cD8iL9N0HH5hY7NRy084BBfVmgaGdxwecwkVm7n1GYArfDezUvaehtyxl fiWBTCGle3Fxu+n
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHI0vfsgePQV8bNNULNx9ZnNQIF4fC4CVONmrK+hNKwAXIwPW8V/2s8V9FeiyMzlqPpAZ0ISrAKEyiEb+4xkv0=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1c23:b0:ae6:efe1:5baf with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-b01d8a75cf5mr2563728066b.19.1757101466185; Fri, 05 Sep 2025 12:44:26 -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> <CA+-tSzxbxH702GJ_e0L8-X1dtvGD5TAJKyEQos1Wh=gk5wNswg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+-tSzxbxH702GJ_e0L8-X1dtvGD5TAJKyEQos1Wh=gk5wNswg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2025 21:44:15 +0200
X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXz6GgwLcg4ffAmeXVpr4c7uZr9fE2XO53GQY-zXQImp6bCAXESksJXKiqM
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMFyq=zNeGUvQeRD0racUKjAQrf7Yi9BBvdv5gWELxZpCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ba0c45063e1310d6"
Message-ID-Hash: KHJKJGYFYXVSJBWTTMHRETBGCUCINCZO
X-Message-ID-Hash: KHJKJGYFYXVSJBWTTMHRETBGCUCINCZO
X-MailFrom: robert@raszuk.net
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/ql8Z84_9CpMqVwQNaQTcHUeiJkw>
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,

How you are load balancing traffic is fully dependent on the choice of
underlay and operator's preference.

Therefor I don't think subject draft is a right place to discuss those
aspects in detail.

The reason I brought up unequal cost lb was only to make sure text in the
draft is not limiting - nothing more nothing less. Ketan's last suggestion
seems as said spot on.

Best,
R.

On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 9:18 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.
>
> 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
>>
>