Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt
"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Wed, 14 October 2020 08:39 UTC
Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347323A145A for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 01:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mbPF-rZylH29 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 01:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6634A3A141B for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 01:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml705-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 59DBAD3577F284931D0C; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:38:51 +0100 (IST)
Received: from dggeme704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.100) by lhreml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:38:50 +0100
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.100) by dggeme704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 16:38:48 +0800
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) by dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 16:38:47 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHWlmVwC6ypd3I8xkyHSNG022ojU6l/nmSwgAESbICAACKHAIAA7E2AgADTYwCAAWy/gIAAAz6AgAA7sgCAAOLhAIAAi8SAgAAopgCAA1loEIAFx4OAgAExPQCAAwtCgIACAvgg//+TI4CAAfmEMA==
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:38:47 +0000
Message-ID: <5d9887519bbc429fb0bf9886b35ccefd@huawei.com>
References: <160138654056.12980.329207214151594381@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKz0y8w5VOf_=baG6UCP8Q9s=VLM2ghT2jhiF5FZNN4JXB23eA@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR05MB63485389C261CA2E0C08DE50AE330@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <0f85212d-fac7-47ea-a608-4f53061cbf02@Spark> <DM6PR05MB63480E863599BBC810BF334AAE300@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV2+jhjAfxq5FzaukdhCOqXvGCkv75xYWcStN=SCrpni4Q@mail.gmail.com> <f4fdff8b-fe11-cb75-3cd7-7766baedf730@cisco.com> <CB2F6A55-B231-4A2D-821C-D3F2ABE6649E@futurewei.com> <00158dee-bb0d-6f5e-f740-b7bac61a1c74@cisco.com> <7F26707A-8137-4114-9236-D80B060E2528@futurewei.com> <DM6PR05MB6348C6FBFD50C19C06DE719BAE0E0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <4896cf59c3314f1c92cdb491d1d8a5a3@huawei.com> <c9b0f0aa-975a-f042-6773-58a603ba5d39@cisco.com> <fe517f068bea428a9a95b3247f20a100@huawei.com> <9c7628a9-d089-1de9-932b-83bb3f875ba3@cisco.com> <34c223a132f748e0a802d538ccd073b0@huawei.com> <c7ad92ab-3ac7-afe9-fa2a-221f80468491@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <c7ad92ab-3ac7-afe9-fa2a-221f80468491@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.143]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/3FuJ2QRTAW50GcYzDP1imOe9wtU>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 08:39:07 -0000
Hi Peter, > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 4:53 PM > To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>; Ron Bonica > <rbonica@juniper.net>; Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>; Gyan > Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > > >>> When one node compute an SR path to a destination, can it compute > >>> the path > >> to only pass the nodes which bind FA-128 to SR SIDs, and avoid the > >> nodes >which bind FA-128 to IP address? If so, how could this node > >> know the binding of FA to different data planes on other nodes? > >> > >> again, it is the participation problem. > >> > >> Nodes that participate in the SR Flex-algo 128 will advertise the > >> participation using the SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV. Only these nodes will > >> be used during the SR flex-algo computation for algo 128. > >> > >> Nodes that participate in IP flex-algo 128 will advertise the > >> participation using the IGP Algorithm Sub-TLV. Only these nodes will > >> be used during the IP flex-algo computation for algo 128. > > > > Agree that if participation to Flex-Algo is advertised in a data plane specific > manner, then path computation with Flex-Algo constraints could be done only > using nodes which bind the Flex-Algo to the same data plane. > > it's per app, not per data plane, but yes, that is what the base flex-algo spec > mandates. > > > As Robert asked and you confirmed, this implies each data plane needs to be > treated as an independent application of Flex-Algo. We have SR-Algorithm > sub-TLV and IP Algorithm sub-TLV, while there are actually more data planes to > be considered: SR-MPLS, SRv6, IPv4, IPv6, etc., does this mean that Flex-Algo > participation needs to be advertised for SR-MPLS, SRv6, IPv4, IPv6, etc. > separately? > > yes, it needs to be advertised per app. We have SR specific algo participation, > we need one for IP as proposed in Ron's draft. OK. While the meaning of "app" here maybe a little vague, are SR-MPLS and SRv6 considered the same or different apps? > Regarding IPv4 vs IPv6, it's up to the authors whether they want to make the > participation for IP flex-algo topology specific or topology independent, both > could work. If the participation is topology specific, do you mean IPv4 and IPv6 could be distinguished by advertising Flex-Algo participation with different Topology IDs (MT-ID)? This way, is the topology ID actually used as the address family distinguisher? Best regards, Jie > Here's the text from the base flerx-algo draft: > > 10.2. Advertisement of Node Participation for Other Applications > > This section describes considerations related to how other > applications can advertise their participation in a specific Flex- > Algorithm. > > Application-specific Flex-Algorithm participation advertisements MAY > be topology specific or MAY be topology independent, depending on the > application itself. > > Application-specific advertisement for Flex-Algorithm participation > MUST be defined for each application and is outside of the scope of > this document. > > thanks, > Peter > > > > > > Best regards, > > Jie > > > >> > >> thanks, > >> Peter > >> > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Jie > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak > >>>> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 11:58 PM > >>>> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>; Ron Bonica > >>>> <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; Yingzhen Qu > >>>> <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> > >>>> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> > >>>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for > >>>> draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > >>>> > >>>> Hi Jimmy, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 09/10/2020 04:59, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: > >>>>> Hi Ron, > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for explaining the difference between IP Flex-Algo and SR > >>>>> Flex-algo. As > >>>> you said, the major difference is the data plane. > >>>>> > >>>>> If my understanding is correct, for one Flex-Algo to be used > >>>>> correctly, the set > >>>> of nodes need to apply consistent constraints in computation, and > >>>> bind the FAD to the same data plane. > >>>>> > >>>>> Is it possible that different nodes may use the same Flex-Algo > >>>>> with different > >>>> data plane, e.g. some with SR-MPLS, some with SRv6, and some with > >>>> pure IP etc., or each Flex-Algo is always associated with only one > >>>> data plane? In the former case, should the flex-algo definition > >>>> also indicate the data plane(s) to be used with the flex-algo? > >>>> > >>>> let me respond to this query, as this is not specific to Ron's draft. > >>>> > >>>> FAD is data plane agnostic and is used by all of them. > >>>> > >>>> thanks, > >>>> Peter > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> Jie > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica > >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 4:34 AM > >>>>>> To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>; Peter Psenak > >>>>>> <ppsenak@cisco.com>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> > >>>>>> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for > >>>>>> draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Yingzhen, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IP Flexible Algorithms are like SR Flexible Algorithms in the > >>>>>> following > >>>> respects: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - Links have IGP metrics, TE metrics, delay metrics and > >>>>>> administrative colors > >>>>>> - FADs define Flexible Algorithms > >>>>>> > >>>>>> More specifically, the FAD: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - Indicates which metric type the Flexible Algorithm uses > >>>>>> - Specifies constraints in terms of link colors that are included > >>>>>> or excluded from the Flexible Algorithm. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The significant difference between IP Flexible Algorithms and SR > >>>>>> Flexible Algorithms is: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - SR Flexible Algorithms bind FADs to prefix SIDs or SRv6 > >>>>>> locators > >>>>>> - IP Flexible Algorithms bind FADs to IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, IP Flexible Algorithms can be deployed in any IP network, > >>>>>> even in the absence of SR. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ron > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Juniper Business Use Only > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com> > >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2020 2:08 PM > >>>>>> To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>; Gyan Mishra > >>>>>> <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>; Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> > >>>>>> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for > >>>>>> draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [External Email. Be cautious of content] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Peter, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Using flex-algo, a SRv6 locator can be associated with a single > >>>>>> algo, which means an IPv6 or IPv4 address can also be associated > >>>>>> with a single algo. So my understanding is Ron's proposal is > >>>>>> making the > >>>> configuration of flex-algo easier? > >>>>>> Instead of using the exclude or include list you can configure a > >>>>>> loopback address to a flex-algo directly? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Yingzhen > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 10/3/20, 2:47 AM, "Peter Psenak" <ppsenak@cisco.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Yingzhen, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 02/10/2020 22:15, Yingzhen Qu wrote: > >>>>>> > Hi Peter, > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > My understanding of flex-algo is that for traffic > >>>>>> destined to a prefix on a particular algo, it can only be routed > >>>>>> on routers belong to that algo, which also means only routers in > >>>>>> that algo calculates how to reach that prefix and install it into > >>>>>> the routing table. It seems to me that using flex-algo (section > >>>>>> 12 of the > >>>>>> draft) it's possible to have a loopback address associated with > >>>>>> only one algo, please correct me if I'm missing or misunderstood > >> something. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> you are right. That is exactly what is being done for flex-algo > with > >>>>>> SRv6 - locator is associated with a single algo only. The > >>>>>> proposal > >> uses > >>>>>> the same concept. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> thanks, > >>>>>> Peter > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Thanks, > >>>>>> > Yingzhen > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On 10/2/20, 9:43 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak" > >>>>>> <lsr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of > >>>>>> ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Gyan, > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On 02/10/2020 18:30, Gyan Mishra wrote: > >>>>>> > > All, > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > With SRv6 and IP based flex algo a generic question > as it > >>>> applies > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> > > both. Is it possible to have within a single IGP > domain > >>>> different > >>>>>> sets > >>>>>> > > of nodes or segments of the network running > different > >>>>>> algorithms. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > absolutely. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > From > >>>>>> > > both drafts it sounds like all nodes have to agree on > >> same > >>>>>> algorithm > >>>>>> > > similar to concept of metric and reference > bandwidth > >> all > >>>> have to > >>>>>> have > >>>>>> > > the same style metric and play to the same sheet of > >> music. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > all participating nodes need to agree on the definition > of > >> the > >>>>>> flex-algo > >>>>>> > and advertise the participation. That's it. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > If there was > >>>>>> > > a way to use multiple algorithms simultaneously > based > >> on > >>>> SFC > >>>>>> or services > >>>>>> > > and instantiation of specific algorithm based on > service > >> to > >>>> be > >>>>>> > > rendered. Doing so without causing a routing loop > or > >> sub > >>>>>> optimal > >>>>>> > > routing. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > you can certainly use multiple algorithms > simultaneously > >> and > >>>> use > >>>>>> algo > >>>>>> > specific paths to forward specific traffic over it. How > that > >> is > >>>> done > >>>>>> > from the forwarding perspective depends in which > >>>> forwarding > >>>>>> plane you > >>>>>> > use. Flex-algo control plane is independent of the > >> forwarding > >>>>>> plane. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >I thought with flex algo that there exists a feature > that > >> on > >>>>>> > > each hop there is a way to specify which algo to use > >> hop by > >>>> hop > >>>>>> similar > >>>>>> > > to a hop by hop policy based routing. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > no, there is no hop-by-hop classification, that is > >> problematic > >>>> and > >>>>>> does > >>>>>> > not scale for high speeds. Classification is done at the > >>>> ingress only. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > thanks, > >>>>>> > Peter > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> > Lsr mailing list > >>>>>> > Lsr@ietf.org > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam11.safelinks.protection.ou > >>>>>> tl > >>>>>> oo > >>>>>> k.com/ > >>>>>> ?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Flsr&da > >>>>>> ta > >>>>>> = > >>>> 0 > >>>>>> 2 > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > *7C01*7Cyingzhen.qu*40futurewei.com*7Cfe03124c6e414e067c2008d86781 > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > 6541*7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc*7C1*7C0*7C63737315273986 > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > 5126&sdata=WI48cEAan*2FOkDPmVXGurEAjPItNGF9p9PDQIlD1ip0g*3D > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > &reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X1fRln9MjimeJcR > >>>>>> EUEIydr-8IIbtNonXMs83eoXvRww6xkaQfVUdNh0kK452GP-G$ > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Lsr mailing list > >>>>>> Lsr@ietf.org > >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Lsr mailing list > >>>> Lsr@ietf.org > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > >>> > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Lsr mailing list > >> Lsr@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > > >
- [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-boni… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Jia Chen
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Huzhibo
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Huzhibo
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Yingzhen Qu
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Yingzhen Qu
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Gyan Mishra
- [Lsr] draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-01 Huaimo Chen
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- [Lsr] 回复: draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo-01 zhuyq8
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-boni… Peter Psenak