Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02
Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Mon, 24 May 2021 01:12 UTC
Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 A9AD33A0DEB; Sun, 23 May 2021 18:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 hZsCtdEbRIrS; Sun, 23 May 2021 18:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E5B43A0DED; Sun, 23 May 2021 18:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ja.int.chopps.org.chopps.org (047-026-251-217.res.spectrum.com [47.26.251.217]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 50D9980E04; Mon, 24 May 2021 01:12:10 +0000 (UTC)
References: <202105200955495710804@zte.com.cn> <CY4PR05MB357659CAE530C61E253AC958D52A9@CY4PR05MB3576.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmVRqpSxxFoDKEtdv=zSu6gXbdyDFbpuM7ek93La1n5Hew@mail.gmail.com> <E63007E1-4C5E-479B-A4EE-7EADF93B058A@tony.li> <D363EE45-B866-43EE-B7AD-68B5D70E17E1@cisco.com>
User-agent: mu4e 1.5.13; emacs 27.2
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>, "draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org" <draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, lsr@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 21:04:29 -0400
In-reply-to: <D363EE45-B866-43EE-B7AD-68B5D70E17E1@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <m2eedx9bpy.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/WG-tQF7YrZbJKCWpDgtYnRtvvfg>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02
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: Mon, 24 May 2021 01:12:18 -0000
"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> writes: > Hi Greg, > > > > Additionally, in a vacuum light will only travel 300 meters in a > microsecond. So, in a nanosecond, that is less than a foot. What > transmission technology and application do you anticipate that will > require this this precision? Off by a few magnitude; light travels just shy of 300,000,000 meters per second. Consider that 100Gbps links transmit 100 bits every nanosecond. So about 5 nanoseconds to send a minimum sized ethernet frame (sans the pre/postamble). Thanks, Chris. > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > From: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com> on behalf of Tony Li > <tony.li@tony.li> > Date: Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 4:56 PM > To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > Cc: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn" > <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, > "draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org" > <draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org>, Acee Lindem > <acee@cisco.com> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: > Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02 > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > That’s a very fair question and not one that has been discussed. > > > > Do we have that kind of accuracy from any of our measurement tools? > Is that even on the horizon? I haven’t seen that… > > > > If it is time for nanosecond level measurement, then is it time to > shift to floating point to give us more range? > > > > Tony > > > > On May 23, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Shraddha, Authors, et al., > > I apologize if my question has already been discussed. The unit > for the maximum link delay in the draft is a microsecond. There > is a group of services that require a highly accurate bounded > delay. Have you considered using a nanosecond as the unit for the > link delay? > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 9:17 PM Shraddha Hegde <shraddha= > 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hi Pengshaofu, > > > > Pls see inline.. > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn> > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 7:26 AM > To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> > Cc: acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org > Subject: Re:[Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible > Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02 > > > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > > > > Hi Shraddha, > > > > Thanks. Actually, I don't really want to define other metric > types. > > Let's go back to the bandwidth-metric related to bandwidth > capability. My worry is that bandwidth-metric (whether it is > automatically calculated or manually configured) is not > cumulative in nature, > > <Shraddha> Yes that is correct. > > which is different from IGP default metric/TE metric/delay > metric, > > > > so that SPF based on bandwidth-metric may get an unexpected > path (see the example of the original mail). > > Can more text be added in the draft to describe why this can > work ? > > <Shraddha> Knowing that metric derived inversely from the > link bandwidth is not additive in nature, should set the > expectation right. I can add some text in this regard. > > > > Regards, > > PSF > > > > > > 原始邮件 > > 发件人:ShraddhaHegde > > 收件人:彭少富10053815; > > 抄送人:acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org;lsr@ietf.org; > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org; > > 日期:2021年05月18日 13:01 > > 主题:RE: Re:[Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible > Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02 > > Hi Pengshaofu, > > > > If an operator wants to configure any other metric type draft > provides a mechanism with generic metric. > > Generic metric allows any standard or user-defined type > metric to be configured. > > The draft allows for any computing application such as > Flex-algo, CSPF etc to make use of the > > Metric. The intention of the draft is that for a particular > computation same metric-type is used > > throughout the network. If that is not clear, I’ll add some > text in the draft. > > > > Using a combination of different metrics for a single > computation would need significant change to SPF algorithm > and it is not in the scope of the draft "Flexible Algorithms: > Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints". > > > > Hope that clarifies. > > > > Rgds > > Shraddha > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn> > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 12:49 PM > To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> > Cc: acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org > Subject: Re:[Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible > Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02 > > > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > > > > Hi Shraddha, > > > > The two methods of automatic generation of BW-metric > introduced in the draft are also likely to be the method of > manual configuration of BW-metric by operators. Operators > can certainly manually configure any BW-metric he wants to > configure. > > However, the manually configured BW-metric cannot deviate > from the actual bandwidth capacity of the link, otherwise it > could be any other names such as BX-metric. > > For manual assignment, the problem may still exist We can > find an example that the accumulated bandwidth-metric on the > path may offset the manually increased bandwidth-metric of > links on the path. > > Combination of bandwidth attribute of link and other metric > that is cumulative may be another co-exist way to completely > address this issue. > > > > Regards, > > PSF > > > > > > > > > > 原始邮件 > > 发件人:ShraddhaHegde > > 收件人:彭少富10053815; > > 抄送人:acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org;lsr@ietf.org; > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org; > > 日期:2021年05月17日 12:15 > > 主题:RE: Re:[Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible > Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02 > > Hi Pengshaofu, > > > > I was suggesting to manually assign bandwidth metric which > will override the automatic metric calculation > > as described in the draft section 5. Physically adding more > fiber/capacity is not a feasible solution. > > > > Rgds > > Shraddha > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn> > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 7:40 AM > To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> > Cc: acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org > Subject: Re:[Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible > Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02 > > > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > > > > Hi Shraddha, > > > > Thanks for your rely. > > So it seems that the scheme may lead to the selection of > links with less bandwidth. To address this point, the method > as you described to assign more bandwidth to high bandwidth > links seems not always possible, e.g, adding more fiber ? > > Can this point can be addressed by combination of bandwidth > attribute of link and other metric that is cumulative ? IMO, > bandwidth is not cumulative. > > > > Regards > > PSF > > > > 原始邮件 > > 发件人:ShraddhaHegde > > 收件人:彭少富10053815; > > 抄送人:acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org;lsr@ietf.org; > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org; > > 日期:2021年05月13日 21:01 > > 主题:RE: Re:[Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible > Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02 > > Hi Peng shaofu, > > > > As per the draft, if automatic metric calculation with > reference bandwidth method is used to calculate the metric > > Then as per your example s->D path will be chosen since > metric is 10. > > Lets say operator wants to choose S->X1->X2-àX10->D path then > operator can manually assign higher bandwidth > > Metric on S->D link which will ensure S->D path is not the > least cost path. > > > > Rgds > > Shraddha > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn> > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 1:05 PM > To: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn > Cc: acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org > Subject: Re:[Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible > Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02 > > > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > > > > Sorry for spelling mistakens in the previous email. > > updated text: > > > > > > Hi WG, > > > > I have a little doubt about the scheme described in this > document. > > See the following example: > > > > S ---- X1 ----- X2 ---- ... ... ----- X10 ----- D > > \----------------------------------------------/ > > > > Suppose the links in S---X1---X2...---D have the same > bandwidth 10G, and the link S-D has bandwidth 1G. > > Suppose that we select "reference bandwidth = 100G", then, > > each link in S---X1---X2...---D will have the same > bandwidth-metric 10 (i.e., 100/10) > > link S-D will have a bandwidth-metric 100 (i.e., 100/1) > > > > So flex-algo path from S to D based on bandwidth-metric will > be S-D, not S---X1---X2...---D, because the later has a large > cumulative bandwitdh-metric (i.e., 11*10). > > But our expect path should not be S-D, but > S---X1---X2...---D, as it has large bandwidth. > > Do I misunderstand anything ? > > > > Regards, > > PSF > > > > > > > > > > 发件人:AceeLindem(acee) > > 收件人:lsr@ietf.org; > > 抄送人:draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org; > > 日期:2021年05月13日 05:49 > > 主题:[Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: > Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02 > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > Esteemed Members of the LSR WG, > > > > This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following > draft: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ > draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con/ > > > > Please indicate your support or objection by May 27^th, 2021. > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
- [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorith… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Lizhenbin
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Christian Hopps
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Christian Hopps
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… gregory.mirsky
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… gregory.mirsky
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… gregory.mirsky
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… gregory.mirsky
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… bruno.decraene
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… William Britto A J
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Rajesh M
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algo… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)