Re: [Lsr] Question on using OSFPv2 extended Prefix TLV as the OSPF extension for 5G Edge Computing (was RE: IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com> Thu, 17 December 2020 03:08 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@futurewei.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 EA7F43A13B9; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 19:08:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 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, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=futurewei.com
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 026ZvL9U73Ra; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 19:08:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM11-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn8nam11on2090.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.236.90]) (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 B5D3D3A13B4; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 19:08:46 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=FEEgVDIcLLVL/0+Krs374ZGnB03tEfQBIw6nmbZ+eFN0W3SVJDM/ovYsmo6aFENwFVdXe0/PBboVvAEp5e14FSdKc7bqXOuUF9EfD5wAz5x3I9EO3XKLXpNkGHhNbpeN8GhSdPUqdSIHDosZ1BglnqnotEpddfe5J80dAc2j/0QgJMqBcJqfxeaBWx0KfVVnRK8FGahK+E/D7A/nTIUBAurI5nSjdEpO8ELOWo2O/ymd71ynDbmoTpp6QEpjavNGmAihe6BIw9XL6/MfVjC2asrxL7ZwxHH8yfonmL30qqtlv2IFoas2NtL1BHg/D3D0Sy/SMtwQFY054mYj46jGag==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=mTaIZ8HROByOJr93qzO05vXvhsvyU+4NpiHNcWGJ638=; b=AaZe6UTU5Dgo+e4zvd/6k/ZUF8zYg5xMJtk+dA8333Ca6QnAm60KK38+182dQVgcl2I4rRzWVt8UoN3tUJR6o9KUOLSbf03bbAzVNyV0OFwZWFjNzhe/6zqmtd+dVUeCFXI6tqsgjnOvcdc5D195moZnXDoM9066EoSG1BrMTSjUqZCQggVwE8tXrdIdw6bnEKSqghxNZzJBG77bwhbOG1DaSr9LSkkcqP4JtvMCw++j5INRJRSdhrQzpfuX3cr4E3LI4UulQB2GUR470eokuAhfaf974HbPov85jXmluCvX6Qljmv8lk6z7+/t5GiyIdMBYBQ8p1/Gqto5uUCWV4Q==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=futurewei.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=futurewei.com; dkim=pass header.d=futurewei.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Futurewei.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=mTaIZ8HROByOJr93qzO05vXvhsvyU+4NpiHNcWGJ638=; b=EwoCiV/Qj0KN8UtWwguaAZ4tvoZ10TW8tsGrc+NRTTnYPTIryETSESHvH1BPc1NmDxLCSqP7vT52fpUc0O5NCCva6za52wufMoNxsPM1MoX6PeFRYWyNl7fvDlp7xpPbY14JFKPgFAvxOTCbYJXi5WVTpvFvPQ2tiMW58gqFdm4=
Received: from DM6PR13MB2330.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:cc::16) by DM6PR13MB2508.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:c9::20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3676.14; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 03:08:43 +0000
Received: from DM6PR13MB2330.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c1e2:96dd:2538:b0c4]) by DM6PR13MB2330.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c1e2:96dd:2538:b0c4%3]) with mapi id 15.20.3676.013; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 03:08:43 +0000
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>, "'Acee Lindem (acee)'" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, 'Jeff Tantsura' <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, 'Yingzhen Qu' <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] Question on using OSFPv2 extended Prefix TLV as the OSPF extension for 5G Edge Computing (was RE: IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests
Thread-Index: AQHWswB43kUsMgmtNkiE9WFHO6oxbKm4sxEAgECic4CAAX4pEA==
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 03:08:42 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR13MB23300D17F3853DEBEBA86C9785C40@DM6PR13MB2330.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
References: <SN6PR13MB2334FB60B2DEF450A621C01285EF0@SN6PR13MB2334.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <9af88324-b117-4272-b21d-29002f9183fd@Spark> <75281559-0A10-4F81-B358-AAE2CBA0DE2B@cisco.com> <000901d6d35d$c35e3a40$4a1aaec0$@tsinghua.org.cn>
In-Reply-To: <000901d6d35d$c35e3a40$4a1aaec0$@tsinghua.org.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: tsinghua.org.cn; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;tsinghua.org.cn; dmarc=none action=none header.from=futurewei.com;
x-originating-ip: [72.180.73.64]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: beacaf1f-d8d5-4dca-b9ca-08d8a2390fcb
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR13MB2508:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR13MB2508AFBCE82F5BADB8E89A5485C40@DM6PR13MB2508.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR13MB2330.namprd13.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(396003)(376002)(346002)(136003)(366004)(39840400004)(966005)(2906002)(71200400001)(316002)(86362001)(110136005)(33656002)(7696005)(8676002)(53546011)(9686003)(186003)(478600001)(26005)(44832011)(55016002)(66574015)(64756008)(6506007)(66476007)(166002)(66446008)(8936002)(76116006)(83380400001)(66556008)(5660300002)(52536014)(66946007)(100264003)(559001)(579004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: =?us-ascii?Q?bww85Sk8YR/j4drSjunSXq4KBJAVQXRVjAXIYxQhOcBOtDvnmkYsSlGQsLnu?= =?us-ascii?Q?cZbm5G9fgoZRpQf+qrvRG03Uu7PJN/BwwjQalFv9Fw7o3fRsS1+L/Q1WXJMj?= =?us-ascii?Q?MXkGIU4tDg/+o3gHvkJSdLvRniZt0ZmG9HIfrMF1Ab4E3tNXx8bozsmbMI4K?= =?us-ascii?Q?//7cPvOgab+6fLLl02ZfB1+l0Eu7kVlS8gYFsi0tGmdK8qMVpGMrz3ogWerE?= =?us-ascii?Q?659jFmqGQa3npZCy9NRtdQisq5yRuQvVbvDMzmaIJ5/9Pz+BKzvRpqFEyzas?= =?us-ascii?Q?PQIGLJyzNZCe0VrUUDVkxw7iCilV9QLxO6PHlqwy/Fd1EkO0YAbji5Qn5OgC?= =?us-ascii?Q?HZ0zD+4kLHc+rgr9h2EagKbjTC/Y4+rtFACknkYc1YIL5izax63h8pYfJPOe?= =?us-ascii?Q?3GXO7h7pYl6KnG/mR/9av5GN41T/ZNBC1RGANwVNjSZlJf1rU1ycU0M3UeQp?= =?us-ascii?Q?moEN5fE0RB4rgtT0LSlbW/DDl15qlpEHMzcgoPR1vs/iGcqyCqsrVr6ypO7T?= =?us-ascii?Q?Pec986ck0HFIXjZZVnlSGWb9uZ1MmHwDOTvzZK+eAcA1smdA8ExI61G8MI/f?= =?us-ascii?Q?ts93Tun8oklB7j8fJ7wsqDZDOfEa+LwZdafIuNLUZaDKs/caM1BGQIQl3kEo?= =?us-ascii?Q?tKaXWTvH8neEN7bFwF1OUufHrT1D1OpXIzyztrzh3ejhzSDf77+p6tPA0vXH?= =?us-ascii?Q?9wXYjv8FoA7FjG73wV8aM4Od2WYHluGjXv4v/+uYUvShis4JeGG+i4IYmRql?= =?us-ascii?Q?qYlPnVHPpEq4vTTAfsAxUz+ic1yv3giucBlGYBpGcMYOQrDj3SG4Lon8vRM0?= =?us-ascii?Q?xjHgRlFpRYvhuKNzXMy2PBt6ZhxJVIZfExAq7pW+/qGpCL/DZizE/jGi/ooK?= =?us-ascii?Q?DeXyJy3Q1UsdOgqUict6dVrVuNDGOTfGWlmwPNHrX/pyRH42+WzGpWFK6ztI?= =?us-ascii?Q?ujl88xi0UT5JVSOy2MbJA8h+2F5a6SyDCxnd5kqVDWU=3D?=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM6PR13MB23300D17F3853DEBEBA86C9785C40DM6PR13MB2330namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: Futurewei.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6PR13MB2330.namprd13.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: beacaf1f-d8d5-4dca-b9ca-08d8a2390fcb
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Dec 2020 03:08:43.3760 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 0fee8ff2-a3b2-4018-9c75-3a1d5591fedc
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: pRfaPywfFzhQaHCW4fPgMKywO78rJDONu46wSie0oH3VBkEyOyGU6VH4WYALn568Q9oU72For+npF/biusKk8w==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR13MB2508
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/aZROddSMZAgLpvbqQDHFg9_ytUg>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Question on using OSFPv2 extended Prefix TLV as the OSPF extension for 5G Edge Computing (was RE: IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests
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: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 03:08:50 -0000

Aijun,

Thank you for the analysis and suggestions.

The draft specified 3 Sub-TLVs to carry the IP Layer Metrics to Gauge App Server Running Status: Load Measurement; Capacity Index; and Preference Index. More may be added in the future, especially when there are more information about UEs and their flows that can be passed from 5G Network Exposure Functions.

Let's consider two different scenarios:

Scenario 1:

All the Egress routers to which the App Servers are attached can be configured with a consistent algorithm to compute an aggregated cost that take into consideration of Load Measurement, Capacity value and Preference value. Then this aggregated cost can be encoded in the Metric field [the interface cost] of Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA for  IPv6 [ RFC5340], or  encoded in the "Metric" field of the Stub Link LSA [Link type =3] [RFC2328] for IPv4.

In this scenario, there is no protocol extension needed, but requires all egress routers to agree upon a consistent algorithm to compute the cost to the App server (Prefix)



Scenario 2:

Either it is not possible for all the egress routers to have a consistent algorithm to compute the aggregated cost, or the ingress routers need all the detailed IP Layer metrics for the App Servers for other purposes. Then, the IP Layer Metrics to Gauge App Server running status need to be encoded in LSAs to other nodes. Under this scenario, it makes sense to use the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA for IPv4 and OSPFv3 Extended LSA with Intra-Area-Prefix TLV to carry the detailed sub-TLVs proposed in the draft, so that nodes that don't care about those metrics can ignore them very easily.



For OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA or OSPFv3 Extended LSA, the receiving nodes, who care about the information, have to adjust path compute engine anyway to derive the lowest cost path that takes the IP Layer Metrics into consideration.

Do you agree with this approach?

We will revise the draft to reflect those two different scenarios.


Linda



From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 9:45 PM
To: 'Acee Lindem (acee)' <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; 'Jeff Tantsura' <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>om>; 'Yingzhen Qu' <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>om>; lsr@ietf.org; lsr-chairs@ietf.org; Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Question on using OSFPv2 extended Prefix TLV as the OSPF extension for 5G Edge Computing (was RE: IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests

Hi, Acee and Linda:

The mentioned information in this draft are more related to the links that connect the server to the edge router, than to the prefix of the app server.
For example, the "Capacity Index", "Preference Index" are all related to the site, not the prefix.
And, for "Load Measurement", it is not enough to detect only the load to the server, but omits the load status of the link that connected the servers.
We should also considering the future possible extension, such as the bandwidth reservation on these links to the App server etc.

In conclusion, associate these attributes to the link is more reasonable than to the prefix.
Such links are another typical use case of passive/stub link within the network.


Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

From: lsr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org> <lsr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 8:42 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>; Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>>; lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>; lsr-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-chairs@ietf.org>; Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com<mailto:linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Question on using OSFPv2 extended Prefix TLV as the OSPF extension for 5G Edge Computing (was RE: IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests

Exactly.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 at 6:16 PM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>>, "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-chairs@ietf.org>" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-chairs@ietf.org>>, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com<mailto:linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Question on using OSFPv2 extended Prefix TLV as the OSPF extension for 5G Edge Computing (was RE: IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests

For OSPFv3 use E-LSAs (RFC8362)

Cheers,
Jeff
On Nov 4, 2020, 2:44 PM -0800, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com<mailto:linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>>, wrote:
Acee,

Thank you very much for suggesting using the Prefix TLV for carry the Running Status and environment of 5G Edge Computing servers.

In a nutshell, the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cf2827d041dc345cee04d08d8a174e7fe%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637436870794130603%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=tq07XxEtbbSF2xGocrLD6vmfvAxmWP2CCfjnnedRZxc%3D&reserved=0> proposes the extension to LSA that can carry the three SubTLVs that are used to represent the Running Status and Environment information of the 5G Edge Computing Servers attached to the router:

 * Load measurement sub-TLV
 * Capacity Index  Sub-TLV
 * Preference Index  Sub-TLV

Several sections of the draft are devoted to describe what those measurement are and why need them for 5G Edge Computing, which may have made it not so straightforward when reading in a rush.

The Goal of the OSPF extension is to carry those Sub-TLVs in the router's LSA to be advertised to other routers in the 5G Local Data Network.

If using your suggested RFC7684 OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV, the extension does seem easier and cleaner:

We can have:
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type                          | Length                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Type    | Prefix Length | AF            | Flags         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Prefix (variable)                                     |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Load Measurement Sub-TLV                                      |
~                                                               ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| capacity Index Sub-TLV                                        |
~                                                               ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Site Preference Sub-TLV                                       |
~                                                               ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


RFC7684 only has the Extended Prefix TLV for IPv4. If the App Server addresses are in IPv6, should we specify the extension to RFC8362 in the same draft? Or define a new AF type for the same extension to RFC7684?

Your guidance is greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much.

Linda Dunbar


From: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 1:38 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com<mailto:linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>>; Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>>; lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>; lsr-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Need 10 minute slot to discuss OSPF extension for 5G Edge Computing (was RE: [Lsr] IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests

We have a pretty full schedule and we add you as optional. I took a look at the draft and it is all over the place right now with standardization requested for one solution but 3 separate solutions partially specified. It could benefit from some WG mailing list discussion prior to a 10 minute presentation where we wouldn't have time to discuss the many issues.

One major issue is that you should be extending RFC 7684 rather than RFC 3630 and it seems you these app-server selection metrics should be associated with a prefix and NOT a stub link (i.e., the application server address).

I'll try to read it in more depth before IETF 109.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com<mailto:linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>>
Date: Monday, November 2, 2020 at 10:12 PM
To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>>, "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-chairs@ietf.org>" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-chairs@ietf.org>>
Subject: Need 10 minute slot to discuss OSPF extension for 5G Edge Computing (was RE: [Lsr] IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>>
Resent-To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org<mailto:chopps@chopps.org>>
Resent-Date: Monday, November 2, 2020 at 10:12 PM

LSR Chairs, YingZhen,

Can you give us 10 minute slot to present this new draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cf2827d041dc345cee04d08d8a174e7fe%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637436870794140598%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=ogwLG3uTXdDSm7maL6ACIzMQ2iCo6az97SLZmgyRh%2BY%3D&reserved=0>

This draft describes an OSPF extension that can distribute the 5G Edge Computing App running status and environment, so that other routers in the 5G Local Data Network can make intelligent decision on optimizing forwarding of flows from UEs. The goal is to improve latency and performance for 5G Edge Computing services.

Thank you very much,

Linda Dunbar

From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Yingzhen Qu
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 3:52 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>; lsr-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: [Lsr] IETF 109 LSR Presentation Slot Requests

Hi all,

We're now accepting agenda requests for the LSR Working Grouping meeting IETF 109. Please send your requests to lsr-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-chairs@ietf.org> indicating draft name, speaker, and desired duration (covering presentation and discussion).

LSR session is scheduled on Monday, Nov 16, 12:00-14:00 ICT.

Thanks,
Yingzhen
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cf2827d041dc345cee04d08d8a174e7fe%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637436870794140598%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=PlpVJHzFoK29vV5BLGhiSafeodAX0ttFgBZAOeHyvA4%3D&reserved=0>