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

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Fri, 21 May 2021 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
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 76CC03A129A; Thu, 20 May 2021 20:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 8967u7qeKICr; Thu, 20 May 2021 20:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (mail-m17638.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91AF63A1295; Thu, 20 May 2021 20:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id BD02E1C00E4; Fri, 21 May 2021 11:43:08 +0800 (CST)
From: "Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: "'Acee Lindem \(acee\)'" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, <lsr@ietf.org>
Cc: <draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org>
References: <0BAE6DBA-04A3-4A3A-A1E3-14EFAA0FBE68@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0BAE6DBA-04A3-4A3A-A1E3-14EFAA0FBE68@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 11:43:08 +0800
Message-ID: <004b01d74df3$6a70ad80$3f520880$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004C_01D74E36.7894D7E0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGCHewxXNMdyq1O1SgwkvAA6Y4xT6uXoDHA
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZS1VLWVdZKFlBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1 kPCRoVCBIfWUFZGkgdGFYdTBlNTExPTkoYQhlVEwETFhoSFyQUDg9ZV1kWGg8SFR0UWUFZT0tIVU pKS09ISFVLWQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6Mgg6Kww6Oj8JLy8RHioODzwC LTVPCjFVSlVKTUlKTk1DTkNCSUlDVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQUpPS0xJNwY+
X-HM-Tid: 0a798d050c4bd993kuwsbd02e1c00e4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/lfelA9GDcRj6MDUg4fMdHAP5zF8>
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: Fri, 21 May 2021 03:43:20 -0000

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: lsr-bounces@ietf.org <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 5:09 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Cc: draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org
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