Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-01

Thanks Ketan!

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 1:29 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your support and comments on the draft.
>
>
>
> The proposed encoding for L2 Bundle members and their attributes in OSPF
> is different than the ISIS encodings in RFC8668. ISIS encodings have
> “tighter” LSP space considerations that OSPF. The authors have proposed a
> simpler encoding scheme for OSPF – feedback/inputs are welcome.
>
>
>
> The list of attributes in Figure 2 and 3 also includes L2 Bundle member
> Adj SID. Since the encoding scheme is similar to Layer 3 attributes, we can
> re-use the same sub-TLVs.
>
> Gyan> Makes sense.  So were able to reuse existing TLVs which makes it
> easier then ISIS encoding with OSPFv2 RFC 7684 Extended prefix opaque LSA
> and OSPFv3 RFC 8362 TLV extensibility.  The primary goal of this draft is
> for PCE to be able to instantiation of flows over  LAG L2 member links.  I
> was wondering if this same member link TLV extension can be used for
> control of costs associated with bundle and flow instantiation over a
> member link in a distributed manual model.  Basically same functionality
> provided to controller be able to leverage in a distributed model.
>
Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Gyan Mishra
> *Sent:* 03 October 2020 04:07
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org; draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-l2bundles.all@ietf.org;
> Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; lsr-chairs@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for
> draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-01
>
>
>
>
>
> I support WG adoption of this draft.
>
> I agree that OSPF needs the functionality equivalent to that defined for
> IS-IS in RFC 8668.
>
>
>
> I think the draft should include similar to RFC 8668 section 3 parallel
> layer 3 adjacencies 3 similar Sub TLVs mentioned flag for multiple parallel
> adjacencies.
>
>
>
> Also maybe section 4 of RFC 8668 would apply as well to ospf advertisement
> of L2 bundle Adj sid.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 6:11 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=
> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> I support WG adoption of this draft.
>
> OSPF needs functionality equivalent to that defined for IS-IS in RFC 8668.
>
>
>
>    Les
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
>
> > Sent: Friday, October 02, 2020 5:03 AM
>
> > To: lsr@ietf.org
>
> > Cc: lsr-chairs@ietf.org; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>;
> draft-ketant-
>
> > lsr-ospf-l2bundles.all@ietf.org
>
> > Subject: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-01
>
> >
>
> > This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
>
> >
>
> >   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-l2bundles/
>
> >
>
> > Please indicate your support or objection by October 16, 2020.
>
> >
>
> > Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of
> any
>
> > IPR that applies to this draft.
>
> >
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Chris and Acee.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Lsr mailing list
>
> Lsr@ietf.org
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
> --
>
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
> *Silver Spring, MD
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
>
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD