Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04 - "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks"
Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Tue, 12 April 2022 07:14 UTC
Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.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 C6E603A11AF; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 0SX8sUVUg5wq; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 965193A11AC; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16493; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1649747649; x=1650957249; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nw/fjWB+raO64zM71zOyppeDftRlQQvaVqVnf9brgpc=; b=KA4PMhdpjc/zvbTj0yu+9QiRAtTp9ICObD1tlKVCWcWQAfKlMpDkospn sQTEbsRjInkSmsO5DRZ73MSdh8Ioe8NpzwgjP4qMtmHUmwr96Cb+r6ebh 7BIHI0l1OUjssxN+ME9zXVm18fK9FNgV8H+KWCcmubNzQ7dCMO/mowPC0 Q=;
X-IPAS-Result: A0ABAAC+JVVilxbLJq1aGwEBAQEBAQEBBQEBARIBAQEDAwEBAUCBRgYBAQELAYMlVgEoEkSEVYgmYIgTA5BGjCQUgWgLAQEBDywNCgQBAYR9AQkChHYmNAkOAQIEAQEBAQMCAwEBAQEBAQMBAQUBAQECAQcEFAEBAQEBAQEBJAYMBRA1hWgNhkIBAQEBAgEBARsGDwEFNgQHBQsLEgYCAhEOBAMCAicfAw4GDQYCAQGDAAGCdSQPrnJ6gTGBAYNjQYNzgV8GgRAsAYYUWIdoQ4FJRIEUASeCUzA+gmMBAQIBgRYBHWiDF4JlBJorEFsIYgQyBhMGAgQcLwwgWQMDBAsUCAQKDBMBCAINLZFsMax9gTCDU4QWhwGHAY1SBg8FLoN0jDmGL45kghh6ll6CSYpTlDsEBAuFJ4FhOoFbMxoIGxU7gmlRGQ+IAIY5HohPhUw/AzECNgIGAQoBAQMJih+CSAEB
IronPort-Data: A9a23:lvO/nKLhkFik/D3tFE+R3pUlxSXFcZb7ZxGr2PjKsXjdYENSgjYHz WseCzuPOveJazfxLYwlbY2/8BsPv5CHmtFqSwUd+CA2RRqmiyZq6fd1j6vUF3nPRiEWZBs/t 63yUvGZcIZsCCW0Si6FatANl1EkvU2zbue6Wbas1hxZH1c+En990Eg7wobVv6Yx6TSHK1LV0 T/Ni5W31G+Ng1aY5UpNtspvADs21BjDkGtwUm4WPJinj3eC/5UhN6/zEInqR5fOria4KcbhL wrL5OnREmo0ZH7BAPv9+lrwWhVirrI/oWFih1IOM5VOjCSuqQQe2b0SBOZDRX5rkiizsv9c+ vpzpaCZHFJB0q3kwIzxUjFRHjs7Nqpc9fqeZ3O+qseUiUbBdhMAwd03UxpwZt1eoL4sRzsUn RAbAGhlghSrn/qtzbSyScFnh98oK4/gO4Z3VnRIl26FVK5+KXzFa6rxwcVC0TMhuupDNsTMW pMFVBU0ahuVNnWjPX9OWM5hw49EnELXfydRpk7QpKcr7S3X1xY00aCoPt7YatWOSsJ9n0uEq CTB5WuRKhUBLvSexCaLtHW2iYfnlCj2VddOTLa57fVtxlaUw0QfDRQMXh26rOW3zEmkVLp3K EEI8ywy66k/6EKDQdz0Xhn+q3mB1iPwQPJZHvd/6RmK0LaR5Q+FQGMFVTVGLtchsafaWADGy HellMjANSAwnISpUG+n25i5nxyMKRQ8eDpqiTA/cSMJ5NzqoYcWhx3JT8p+HKPdsuAZCQ0c0 BjR83dj3+R7YdojkvTkrQqe0lpAs7CQFlZtjjg7SF5J+e+QWWJEW2BKwQSLhRqjBN/HJrVkg JTjs5HPhN3i9bnXyESwrBwlRdlFHcqtPjzGmkJIFJI87Tmr8HPLVdkOvGAhfBY0aJ1bKG6Bj KrvVeV5ucE70JyCMPEfXm5NI5hCIVXITI68DamEMrKinLAoL1DblM2RWaJg9zm9zBdz+U3OE Zyaas2rRW0LErhqySHeegvu+eFD+8zK/kuKHcqT503+idK2PSfFIZ9YYQDmRr1os8u5TPD9r o832z2ikE0PDoUTo0D/rOYuELz9BSRjXsCp9pYPL4Zu4GNOQQkcNhMY+pt5E6QNokifvr6gE q2VMqOA9GfCuA==
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:qH39UKxXVWC3aGuV5h2nKrPwHb1zdoMgy1knxilNoNJuA6+lfr OV/cjzsiWE7gr5OUtQ/uxoV5PsfZqxz+8R3WBVB8bHYOCEggeVxeNZh7cKqgeIc0bDH6xmpM VdmsNFZuEYY2IbsS+32maF+xJK+qj+zEhu7t2utktQcQ==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,253,1643673600"; d="scan'208";a="274100"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 12 Apr 2022 07:14:07 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 23C7E6sM026292; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 07:14:06 GMT
Message-ID: <46e4c6c1-4ae6-a628-ba27-daa5381c0ac0@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 09:14:06 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo@ietf.org>
References: <36E526F2-34CB-4C0A-84C2-79A50D9D4C36@cisco.com> <CAH6gdPwrshSVGNsjJVqND8kpNBTBQWicggEz_qyP0DtMYY5wjg@mail.gmail.com> <b6250861-a35d-2a47-6701-194b074e7233@cisco.com> <CAH6gdPwbL5qWX_GXfuv5YL4mRL9xUy3p9wc7an-FbnzpTc0U9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH6gdPwbL5qWX_GXfuv5YL4mRL9xUy3p9wc7an-FbnzpTc0U9A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.52, ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/usJ1uith7h_Ick29PRRyncudw-4>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04 - "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks"
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: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 07:14:15 -0000
Hi Ketan, please see inline (##PP2): On 11/04/2022 16:02, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Please check inline below. > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 1:06 PM Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com > <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Hi Ketan, > > please responses to some of your comments inline (##PP): > > On 11/04/2022 08:25, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > Following are some comments on this draft: > > > > 1) Is this draft about opening the use of all IGP Algorithms for IP > > (Algo) Routing or intended to be specific to Flexible Algorithms > (i.e. > > algo 128-255) alone. I think it is important to specify the scope > > unambiguously. Perhaps it makes sense to restrict the usage in this > > particular document to FlexAlgorithms alone. If not, the draft > probably > > needs an update and we need to also cover algo 1 (Strict SPF) > > applicability and update the text to refer more generically to > > algo-specific IP routing. > > ##PP > the intent is to use FlexAlgorithms only. > > > KT> Can the authors clarify this in the text? Perhaps something in one > of the earlier sections of the document that says something like - > "these extensions apply to FlexAlgorithms (128-255) only and the use for > other algorithms is beyond the scope of the document." Also perhaps, > indicate that advertisements for algos outside the FlexAlgorithm ranges > SHOULD be ignored. ##PP2 sure > > > > > > 2) The relationship between the algo usage for IP FlexAlgo and other > > data planes (e.g. FlexAlgo with SR) is not very clear. There arise > > complications when the algo usage for IP FlexAlgo overlap with other > > (say SR) data planes since the FAD is shared but the node > participation > > is not shared. While Sec 9 suggests that we can work through these > > complications, I question the need for such complexity. The FlexAlgo > > space is large enough to allow it to be shared between various data > > planes without overlap. My suggestion would be to neither carve out > > parallel algo spaces within IGPs for various types of FlexAlgo data > > planes nor allow the same algo to be used by both IP and SR data > planes. > > So that we have a single topology computation in the IGP for a given > > algo based on its FAD and data plane participation and then when it > > comes to prefix calculation, the results could involve > programming of > > entries in respective forwarding planes based on the signaling of > the > > respective prefix reachabilities. The coverage of these aspects in a > > dedicated section upfront will help. > > ##PP > I strongly disagree. > > FAD is data-pane/app independent. Participation is data-plane/app > dependent. Base flex-algo specification is very clear about that. That > has advantages and we do not want to modify that part. > > > KT> No issue with this part. > > > Topology calculation for algo/data-plane needs to take both FAD and > participation into account. You need independent calculation for each > data-plane/app in the same algo. > > > KT> So, an implementation now needs to potentially support performing > multiple topology computations for each algo. This is a complication for > which I do not see the justification. Why not just pick different > algorithms for different data planes for those (rare?) deployments where > someone wants multiple data planes? ##PP2 flex-algo architecture supports multiple apps/data-planes per algo, with unique participation per app/data-plane. That requires per-algo/per app/data-plane calculation. What is complicated on it? If your implementation does not want to support it, fine, but the architecture allows it and there is/are implementation(s) that already support it. This is not defined in this draft, it's defined in base flex-algo spec. > > > The fact that the same FAD is shareable between all apps has it > advantages and use cases - e.g. if the participation for algo X is the > same in SR and IP data-planes, one can use SR to protect IP in that > algo. > > > KT> Would this protection use case not violate the base FlexAlgo rule > that the protection has to remain within the specific topology. If there > is an SR data plane, then why would one want an IP data plane as well? ##PP2 if the participation in two app/data-planes is the same for the algo, the resulting topology is the same. If your implementation is smart, it can only run a single computation for that case. There is no violation here whatsoever. > IP forwarding can be steered over the SR-based FlexAlgo topology along > with the protection provided by it. Am I missing something? ##PP2 topology for both primary and backup computation must be the same. > > > > > > > 3) This draft makes assertions that IGP FlexAlgo cannot be deployed > > without SR. This is not true since the base IGP FlexAlgo spec > explicitly > > opens it up for usage outside of the SR forwarding plane. We already > > have BIER and MLDP forwarding planes as users of the IGP > FlexAlgo. My > > suggestion is to remove such assertions from the document. It is > > sufficient to just say that the document enables the use of IGP > FlexAlgo > > for IP prefixes with native IP forwarding. > > ##PP > where do you see such assertion? Each flex-algo data-plane/app can be > deployed independently. > > > KT> Let me clarify what I meant by taking the example of the abstract. > > OLD > > An IGP Flexible Algorithm (Flex-Algorithm) allows IGP to compute > constraint-based paths. As currently defined, IGP Flex-Algorithm is > used with Segment Routing (SR) data planes - SR MPLS and SRv6. > Therefore, Flex-Algorithm cannot be deployed in the absence of SR. > > This document extends IGP Flex-Algorithm, so that it can be used for > regular IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes. This allows Flex-Algorithm to be > deployed in any IP network, even in the absence of SR. > > > NEW > > An IGP Flexible Algorithm (Flex-Algorithm) allows IGP to compute > constraint-based paths. The base IGP Flex-Algorithm document > specified use with Segment Routing (SR) data planes - SR MPLS and > > SRv6. > > This document extends IGP Flex-Algorithm, so that it can be used with > regular IPv4 and IPv6 forwarding. ##PP2 ok > > > > > > 4) The draft is mixing up "address" and "prefix" in some places. IGP > > path computation is for prefixes and not addresses. There are a few > > instances where "address" should be replaced by "prefix". > References to > > RFC791 and RFC8200 seem unnecessary. > > > > 5) The draft does not cover the actual deployment use-case or > > applicability of IP FlexAlgo. The text in Sec 3 is not clear and > > insufficient. What is the point/use of sending traffic to a > loopback of > > the egress router? Perhaps it makes sense in a deployment where > IP-in-IP > > encapsulation is used for delivering an overlay service? If so, > would be > > better to clarify this. The other deployment scenario is where > > "external" or "host/leaf prefixes" are associated with a FlexAlgo to > > provide them a different/appropriate routing path through the > network. > > Yet another is the use of IP FlexAlgo along with LDP. Sec 9 does not > > address the topic well enough. I would suggest expanding and > clarifying > > this and perhaps other such deployment use cases (or > applicability) in > > the document in one of the earlier sections to provide a better > context > > to the reader. > > > > 6) It would be better to move the common (i.e. not protocol > specific) > > text from 5.1 and 5.2 under 5. This might also apply to some > extent to > > the contents of sec 6. > > > > 7) Most of the text with MUSTs in sec 5 doesn't really make sense in > > repeating - this is covered in the base FlexAlgo spec already. > The only > > key/important MUST is the one related to using separate algo for IP > > FlexAlgo over SR data planes. See my previous comment (2) above. > > > > 8) Sec 5.1, the SHOULD needs to be MUST in the text below. > > > > A router receiving multiple IP Algorithm > > sub-TLVs from the same originator SHOULD select the first > > advertisement in the lowest-numbered LSP and subsequent > instances of > > the IP Algorithm Sub-TLV MUST be ignored. > > > > > > 9) Sec 5.1, I would suggest changing the following text as > indicated. > > Also, perhaps add that the algo 0 MUST NOT be advertised and a > receiver > > MUST ignore if it receives algo 0. > > OLD > > > > The IP Algorithm Sub-TLV could be used to advertise > > support for non-zero standard algorithms, but that is outside the > > scope of this document. > > > > NEW > > > > The use of IP Algorithm Sub-TLV to advertise support for > algorithms > > > > outside the flex-algorithm range is outside the > > scope of this document. > > > > > > 10) Sec 5.1, the SHOULD needs to be MUST in the text below > > > > The IP Algorithm TLV is optional. It SHOULD only be > advertised once > > in the Router Information Opaque LSA. > > > > > > 11) Sec 6. The following text is better moved into the respective > > protocol sub-sections. OSPFv3 is not covered anyway by it. > > > > Two new top-level TLVs are defined in ISIS [ISO10589 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo#ref-ISO10589 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo#ref-ISO10589>>] > to advertise > > prefix reachability associated with a Flex-Algorithm. > > > > * The IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV > > > > * The IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV > > > > New top-level TLV of OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA > [RFC7684 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7684 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7684>>] is > > defined to advertise prefix reachability associated with a Flex- > > Algorithm in OSPFv2. > > > > 12) Sec 6.1 & 6.2. There is no discussion regd the use of the Prefix > > Attribute Flags sub-TLV with the new top-level TLVs. > > > > I think their usage MUST (or at least SHOULD) be included as it > helps > > determine the route type and prefix attributes that > > > > have proven to be quite useful for various use cases and deployments. > > > > > > 13) Sec 6.2 what happens when the same prefix is advertised as SRv6 > > Locator as well as IPv6 Algo Prefix (same or conflicting algos). > Perhaps > > both must be ignored? > > > > The same applies for OSPFv3 as well. > > > > > > 14) Sec 6.3, OSPFv2 MT-ID reference should be RFC4915. Perhaps > the range > > of MT should be mentioned since it is a 8 bit field here. > > > > > > 15) Sec 6.4, the metric field in the sub-TLV has to be 32-bit. While > > 24-bit is ok when the FAD uses IGP metric, it will not suffice > for other > > IGP metric types. > > > > > > 16) Sec 6.3 & 6.4, the conflict checking with base algo 0 prefix > > reachability cannot be limited only to the OSPFv2/3 Extended LSAs > but > > should also cover the base fixed form > > > > OSPFv2/v3 LSAs. We could use a more generic term like "normal prefix > > reachability" advertisements perhaps to cover the different LSAs? > > > > > > 17) Sec 7 and 8, suggest to not use the term "application" to avoid > > confusion with ASLA. My understanding is that there is a single > FlexAlgo > > application when it comes to ASLA. > > > > Perhaps the intention here is "data plane" ? > > > > > > 18) The relationship between the BIER IPA and this draft needs some > > clarifications - should the BIER WG be notified if they want to > update > > draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa? > > ##PP > what is the relationship? I see none. > > > KT> Can BIER use FlexAlgo with IP Forwarding as the IPA? > Perhaps draft-ietf-bier-bar-ipa needs to discuss/cover flex algo? This > comment is not so much about the IP FlexAlgo draft and maybe someone > here also working on BIER can point to a document that covers the > applicability of FlexAlgo as IPA for BIER. ##PP2 I let some BIER knowledgeable folks to respond to that. > > > > > > > This (in some way) goes back to my comment (2) above. > > > > > > 19) Sec 8, what prevents the use of IP FlexAlgo paths programmed > by LDP > > as well. Or if the intention is to use them strictly for IP > forwarding only > > > > then this needs to be clarified. > > > > > > 20) The following text in Sec 9 is about using the same FlexAlgo > (with a > > common definition) for multiple data-planes at the same time. The > key is > > that we only are able to use > > > > prefix in one algo/data-plane? I am wondering if we can improve this > > text to bring this out in a better way. Or altogether remove this > if we > > agree to not allow sharing of algo > > > > between different data planes to keep things simple. > > > > Multiple application can use the same Flex-Algorithm value at the > > > > same time and and as such share the FAD for it. For example > SR-MPLS > > and IP can both use such common Flex-Algorithm. Traffic for > SR-MPLS > > will be forwarded based on Flex-algorithm specific SR SIDs. > Traffic > > for IP Flex-Algorithm will be forwarded based on Flex-Algorithm > > specific prefix reachability announcements. > > > ##PP > above text does not talk about the same prefix. It talks in general how > forwarding works in presence of multiple data-planes/apps using the > same > algo. > > > KT> I am suggesting that clarifying that we are talking about different > prefixes here would be helpful. > ##PP2 absolutely. thanks, Peter > Thanks, > Ketan > > > thanks, > Peter > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:38 AM Acee Lindem (acee) > > <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org > <mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> > <mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org > <mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>> wrote: > > > > This begins a WG last call for > draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04. The > > draft had a lot of support and discussion initially and has been > > stable for some time. Please review and send your comments, > support, > > or objection to this list before 12 AM UTC on April 22^nd , > 2022.____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Thanks, > > Acee____ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org > <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr> > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>> > > >
- [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Huzhibo
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… John E Drake
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ron Bonica
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Parag Kaneriya
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-… Ketan Talaulikar
- [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] Re: W… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… John Scudder
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… John E Drake
- Re: [Lsr] [Need AD’s Judgement and Explanation] R… Aijun Wang