Hello Peter,
Le 12/04/2019 à 15:27, Peter Psenak a écrit : > Hi Oliver, > > There are two major purposes served by the drafts: > > 1)Support of incongruent topologies for different applications Don't understand. What do you mean ? > > 2)Advertisement of application specific values even on links that are in > use by multiple applications Hum. Do you think it makes sense to announce different TE metric for the same link for different applications ? e.g. 10 ms delay for RSVP-TE, 20 ms for SR, 15 ms for LFA and 5 ms for Flex -Algo ? The link has a fix delay propagation whatever the application. If the goal is to dedicated link per application, Resource Class/Color attribute could be used. If you would advertised different metric per CoS, then you need to dedicated metric per CoS like the unreserved bandwidth. > > These issues are clearly articulated in the Introductions of both > drafts. LSR WG acknowledged them a while back and decided to address > them. > > Issue #1 has already had a significant impact on early deployments of > SRTE in networks where there is partial deployment of SR in the presence > of RSVP-TE. Can you point me a concrete and detail example of the problem ? With a PCE, there is no problem to manage both RSVP-TE and SR-TE in the same network. And again, as already mention, if the problem come from bandwidth reservation, the draft will not solve the issue. > > Issue #2 will be seen in deployments where Flex-Algo and SRTE (or > RSVP-TE) are also present. Early implementers of Flex-Algo can attest to > this. Again, I don't see the problem. Can you explain in detail ? I already implement SR in OSPF, starting playing with TE, and there is no problem to get TE information from OSPF to tune some Segment Path. If it is an implementation issue, it is not a new RFC that will solve the problem. > > It is simply not possible to address these issues with the existing > single set of application independent advertisements. Why ? Again, explain in detail. I don't see a real use case that could not be address with standard TE attributes. > > The solutions we provide in both drafts allow to share the link > attributes between application as well as keep them separate if that is > what is required. > > thanks, > Peter Regards Olivier > > On 11/04/2019 19:43 , [email protected] wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm not in favour of this draft. >> >> As already mention, I don't see the interest to duplicate TE attributes >> in new Extended Link Opaque LSA. For me, it is only a matter of >> implementation to look at various place in the OSPF TE Database to take >> Traffic Engineering information. >> >> From an operator perspective, it is already hard to manage TE attribute >> and I'm pretty sure that we could not ask network management team to >> maintain 2 systems for certainly a long period of time as many TE >> attributes remains in the standard Opaque LSA Traffic Engineering. >> >> Regards >> >> Olivier >> >> >> Le 11/04/2019 à 18:11, Acee Lindem (acee) a écrit : >>> >>> LSR Working Group, >>> >>> >>> >>> This begins a two week WG last call for the subject document. Please >>> enter your support or objection to the document before 12:00 AM (EDT) >>> on Friday, April 27^th , 2019. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lsr mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >> >> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu >> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou >> falsifie. Merci. >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >> information that may be protected by law; >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >> delete this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been >> modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. >> > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
