IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Numbering Exchange Protocol (NEP) ID.

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sat, 09 December 2017 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF7C126CC7 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 14:44:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 w_G_vQSwP25H for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 14:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8769C1243F6 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 14:44:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15065; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1512859443; x=1514069043; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=hYL7OfQwLely1yGTAanxPqlHIhgcdFaVLiBYfzk4Ij4=; b=cHd1fBADXEtIZF+m/uIHU6f1vF0JCM66VTllA+0bJxQGWDozeF/F2PQy 3C8z8vYP3tJywRiICD8jXtcSmtxmjh49pF7glIyhNEabOJiVwkPLZFAKX CycaxtVHH5beELg+mAQ4E/AMVqex6gQa0SdBGj1qZXjQ2rd2+0y/JRhSj k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BtFQBEZixa/4YNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJKRS9mdCcHg3uKIY5fAR2BfX5cgQeGFIhMhUuCFQoYAQqFGAIahEU/GAEBAQEBAQEBAWsohSIBAQEEASJLCwwEAgEIDgMDAQIoAwICAh8HChQJCAEBBAENBYlETAMVEKZlgieHMA2DJgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFg2iBYQEpgz6CdjaCakiCDQYQgl+CYwWiVD0Ch3eHGoESAYR7ghaGEoQNhy6NCj2IagIRGQGBOgEfOYFPbxU6gimCGYI8eAGITYEVAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,384,1508803200"; d="scan'208,217";a="320094165"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Dec 2017 22:44:02 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vB9Mi2N4016224 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 9 Dec 2017 22:44:02 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 17:44:01 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 17:44:01 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
CC: rtgwg <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Numbering Exchange Protocol (NEP) ID.
Thread-Topic: Numbering Exchange Protocol (NEP) ID.
Thread-Index: AdNwPTnVfbkDNjHfSz2d3iUoZdzQRgBAfZmA
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:44:00 +0000
Message-ID: <D651D080.E0BD9%acee@cisco.com>
References: <CAL9jLab8BmdzoCaskxsMKKD_=v3tU89DPfhUd0jc8sYECv3K4g@mail.gmail.com> <AM4PR0401MB2241B80CE000993AE52AB995BD310@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0401MB2241B80CE000993AE52AB995BD310@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.198]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D651D080E0BD9aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/xgvYPrgYqR75DMAoCI9ni7dURFk>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:44:06 -0000

Khaled,

The existing IGPs will allow for alternate metrics, we don’t need a new protocol. In fact, it will be supported at the per-prefix granularity.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-flex-algo/

No time in my agenda for NEP…

Thanks,
Acee

From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com<mailto:eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>>
Date: Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 3:40 PM
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com<mailto:morrowc.lists@gmail.com>>
Cc: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: Numbering Exchange Protocol (NEP) ID.

Hi Christopher,

The problem is how to choose the best route based on the metric.

RIP uses only the number of hops.
OSPF uses only the cost (bandwidth).
EIGRP uses the least bandwidth and total delay.
IS-IS uses a default metric of 10 for all links.
NEP uses the total bandwidth, total delay, and the number of hops.

So, the challenge is to find the best metric that will chose the best route.

The ID lists the equation of how to calculate the metric.







-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Numbering Exchange Protocol (NEP) ID.
From: Christopher Morrow
To: Khaled Omar
CC: rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>,ietf


what problem were you trying to solve?

On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com<mailto:eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Hi everyone,

Please let me have the opportunity to ask all of you to reserve some time in your agenda for the discussion of NEP and give it a priority on the kist of your discussion as it will not take long time looking for something more to add.

I have confidence that this ID has more to add but the contents is just the start of the new protocol.

I hope I'm not bothering you by my question but I'm sure everyone of you has something on mind to add to make the ID take the best shape and please do not be afraid of posting any comment regarding the contents of the 2nd version of the I-D.

This long e-mail is to encourage you to participate and I'm sure the discussion will be exciting and please do not understand as i'm pushing you to participate, eventually it is up to you.

P.S. After finding the appropriate area or wg for the discussion I will stop sending e-mails to the ietf mailing list.

Thanks,

Khaled Omar


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Numbering Exchange Protocol (NEP) ID.
From: Khaled Omar
To: rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
CC: ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org>


Hi everyone,

Below is one of the IDs that I uploaded to the IETF and looking for discussing it with the appropriate people and the appropriate area of discussion.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-omar-nep/

I tried to make it not so long so it can be read quickly and still clear for everyone.

Regards,

Khaled Omar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email