Thanks Ignacio, I have added your NEW text to the working version. Al > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of J Ignacio Alvarez- > Hamelin > Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 9:26 AM > To: Ruediger.Geib@xxxxxxxxxx; stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-route.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; rtg- > dir@xxxxxxxx; ippm@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [ippm] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-route-08 > > Dear Stewart, > > Here is the correction on the previous part: > > ====== > This procedure requires to compute quartile values "on the fly" using > the algorithm presented in [P2]. > > Minor English issue - missing text after requires > ====== > NEW > > This procedure requires the algorithm presented in [P2] to compute > quartile values "on the fly”. > > > Regards, > > J. Ignacio > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Dr. Ing. José Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin > CONICET and Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Buenos Aires > Av. Paseo Colón 850 - C1063ACV - Buenos Aires - Argentina > +54 (11) 5285 0716 / 5285 0705 > e-mail: ihameli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > web: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- > 3A__cnet.fi.uba.ar_ignacio.alvarez-2Dhamelin_&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=M3YmjIQx0fRYuePHMB4- > eL81RTxXhx9rxjCedmHPofU&s=dxdbx5s1hKosBmwmgPBmyO4gtTyx34fo4_WDVZizodU&e= > _______________________________________________________________ > > > P.D. Thanks Rüdiger! > > > > > > On 7 Jul 2020, at 02:27, Ruediger.Geib@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > Hi Stewart, > > > > Thanks, you are right, there are more options and the text should > reflect that. I've reviewed the section and suggest some more > clarifications below. > > > > Regards, Ruediger > > > > OLD > > Early deployments may support a so called > > "Entropy label" for this purpose. State of the art deployments base > > their choice of an ECMP member based on the IP addresses (see > > Section 2.4 of [RFC7325]). Both methods allow load sharing > > information to be decoupled from routing information. Thus, an MPLS > > traceroute is able to check how packets with a contiguous number of > > ECMP relevant addresses (and the same destination) are routed by a > > particular router. The minimum number of MPLS paths traceable at a > > router should be 32. Implementations supporting more paths are > > available. > > > > NEW > > Late deployments may support a so called > > "Entropy label" for this purpose. State of the art deployments base > > their choice of an ECMP member interface on the complete MPLS label > stack > > and on IP addresses up to the complete 5 tuple IP header information > (see > > Section 2.4 of [RFC7325]). Load Sharing based on IP information > decouples > > this function from the actual MPLS routing information. Thus, an MPLS > > traceroute is able to check how packets with a contiguous number of > > ECMP relevant IP addresses (and an identical MPLS label stack) are > forwarded by a > > particular router. The minimum number of equivalent MPLS paths > traceable at a > > router should be 32. Implementations supporting more paths are > > available. > > . > > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > > Gesendet: Freitag, 3. Juli 2020 18:47 > > An: rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx > > Cc: ippm@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ippm- > route.all@xxxxxxxx > > Betreff: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-route-08 > > > > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > > Review result: Has Issues > > > > This is a well written document with a technical point that needs > addressing and a couple of small nits, other than that it is ready to go. > > > > ======== > > Early deployments may support a so called > > "Entropy label" for this purpose. State of the art deployments base > > their choice of an ECMP member based on the IP addresses (see > > Section 2.4 of [RFC7325]). > > > > The entropy label is a relatively modern concept and I am not sure how > widely it is deployed. Older routers used either a hash on the labels as > far down the stack as they could reach (the goal was to include the BoS > label this was a VPN or a PW), or (more commonly) reached over the label > stack (sometimes > > incorrectly) and hash on the five tuple of the payload. > > > > ====== > > This procedure requires to compute quartile values "on the fly" using > the algorithm presented in [P2]. > > > > Minor English issue - missing text after requires ====== For reasons > pointed out by one of the other reviewers, it is a pity that Class C is > used, but it seems to be well embedded in the technology and would be > difficult to change. > > ======= > > Nits says that there is a requirements language problem. I think that > may be that it is simply in the wrong place. It would be good if it were > fixed to prevent other reviewers also needing to deal with this point > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@xxxxxxxx > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=M3YmjIQx0fRYuePHMB4- > eL81RTxXhx9rxjCedmHPofU&s=jc0Qu5cvjWUUk-9ni2TMhivNPh4-Th1f62BrChzmkwk&e= -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
