Re: [Idr] Generic Metric for the AIGP attribute

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hey Srihari,

So yes or now.

You can treat them as different routes or just advertise paths. AIGP is
path attribute so we do not need to actually turn it into different net.

But irrespective on how it is done currently the draft seems silent on this
and IMO it should provide such solution day one.

Still like it though :)  In fact I prefer it vs CAR/CT proposals and I do
not see them as complementary as they do solve the same problem. I like
simplicity.

Cheers,
R.




On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 5:52 PM Srihari Sangli <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
>
> Comments inline.
>
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
>
>
>
> srihari…
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 11:38 AM
> *To: *Srihari Sangli <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *idr@ietf. org <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Generic Metric for the AIGP attribute
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi Srihari,
>
>
>
> The proposal is pretty cool - I like it,
>
>
>
> Srihari> Thanks Robert.
>
>
>
>
>
> [cut]
>
>
>
> When ASBR selects best path for a given b_net it is torn apart which one
> to select as some nodes in its ASN need both.
>
>
>
>
>
> Srihari> If the domain needs both routes, we have to make them look like
> different routes. By doing them, the operator will have better and
> independent control on any further changes in individual route. For e.g.
> latency can change and as a result the route needs to be readvertised.
> Couple ways of making the routes unique is what you propose, but idea is to
> give more flexibility to the domains to choose if required.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>