Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

[Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

I support the adoption of the “FAD constraint sub-TLV” part(Section 3),  but not support the introduce of  “Bandwidth Metric Advertisement” part (Section 4) and other related parts.

With the introduce of additional constraint information, the problem described in “Introduction” part(Section 1) can be solved.

 

The usage of bandwidth metric in large network is not feasible. 

And, would you like to explain more for the following statements(in Section 4.1.1.2)

“In the interface group mode, every node MUST identify the set of

   parallel links between a pair of nodes based on IGP link

   advertisements and MUST consider cumulative bandwidth of the parallel

   links while arriving at the metric of each link.”

based on example described in Figure 7? 

 

How the cumulative bandwidth will be used to achieve the result that traffic from B to D will prefer B-C-F-D, not B-E-D? 

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 5:09 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

 

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 27th, 2021.

 

Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.

 

Thanks,

Chris and Acee