[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ms-ospf
Subject:    Re: [Lsr] [spring] Concerns with draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing
From:       Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri () gmail ! com>
Date:       2018-07-17 18:43:38
Message-ID: CA+t703xFRRakRB7rfJGFL-Dp8zoKddtcEXM7HRcgcRB0PSvMBg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]


Les -

in-line

...


>
> Although I will certainly consider the additional response you seem to
> have hinted at in your reply to Peter, it seems to me that Section 6 of
> your draft acknowledges that there is a scaling problem


[Uma]:  What it says is there is no scale issue in certain deployments
where only limited number of pats are required (examples given).  In that
case you don't need any *further extensions* as referred.
              As we noted this is fully backward compatible for SR-MPLS and
SRH data planes and one can go ahead and use it one can't find a path and
SID depth is an issue (in terms of  any of these, HW compatibility, Line
rate, header tax or MTU).


> - and then references what seems to be a non-existent draft (I could not
> find "draft-ce-ppr-graph-00" ???) as a proposed solution.
>

[Uma]: This will be posted soon, few things are being worked out. This
helps in certain cases (you will see soon), where you want to scale
optimized paths.


>
> In any further response you make it would be good if you did indicate
> whether you agree PPR has a scaling issue -


[Uma]: Plz see above..


> Thanx.
>
>     Les
>
>

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Les \
-</div><div><br></div><div>in-line</div><div><br></div><div>..</div><div>  \
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br>
Although I will certainly consider the additional response you seem to have hinted at \
in your reply to Peter, it seems to me that Section 6 of your draft acknowledges that \
there is a scaling problem</blockquote><div><br></div><div>[Uma]:   What it says is \
there is no scale issue in certain deployments where only limited number of pats are \
required (examples given).   In that case you don&#39;t need any *further extensions* \
as referred.</div><div>                     As we noted this is fully backward \
compatible for SR-MPLS and SRH data planes and one can go ahead and use it one \
can&#39;t find a path and SID depth is an issue (in terms of   any of these, HW \
compatibility, Line rate, header tax or MTU)..  </div><div>  </div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"> - and then references what seems to be a non-existent draft \
(I could not find &quot;draft-ce-ppr-graph-00&quot; ???) as a proposed \
solution.<br></blockquote><div>  </div><div>[Uma]: This will be posted soon, few \
things are being worked out. This helps in certain cases (you will see soon), where \
you want to scale optimized paths.</div><div>  </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br>
In any further response you make it would be good if you did indicate whether you \
agree PPR has a scaling issue - </blockquote><div><br></div><div>[Uma]: Plz see \
above..</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br>
Thanx.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
      Les<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div \
class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>



_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]