From nobody Mon Apr 3 09:00:12 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC4DC15171E for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 09:00:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.095 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xz0hlSM0onM2 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 09:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4835BC14CE22 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2023 09:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id l27so29892587wrb.2 for ; Mon, 03 Apr 2023 09:00:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; t=1680537605; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9bKnKO5OBXOBCsGi+5dJtmdOSm3oDTmex3USgrOwwWg=; b=d9V/9My95/iT7N05OXUlse6yQopXIRLPk7ytHoPp+DuRvI1UmwD55oi0SZ+ndAjr+R F6U8Xba3NCW+uksQTNAdYJZ8VjtrMRyFLB7Pm1Iz/0z7vLvHrxsnUufcrIFqO3UDxXly bnv2NYYmJ7O37VldJjPGkA0qgDmnQiUMvTPImcLPET90OEOPT3Nw31Sdf8R0fLiOmZFu CBYE64ZZQhH+hSqrveqZhRwJUplVm7iVailzED0EiS+bPXlS8dNTB3eaVcyLuewxUM2e c/xc7jnV11cQ/WYG0zvQLQyfGguBFolzD9A/YGthgnTJNEItppKrEuJw/Xquh/vMoVjU XKiw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680537605; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=9bKnKO5OBXOBCsGi+5dJtmdOSm3oDTmex3USgrOwwWg=; b=t0woFFaUl77K7Tz/kxK6n7HujN0fZPf5JXVX3CW0F5wBHn2SNV91pFchdciXIDCe55 NyWPE/qPbnIrjKWh+xSUHTLLLEPIyFSyXHTAYX/7boWs6yHboyOCwzjfbi0xiFi3fhTU 83L+gi9s6ihjUptNmYig/tgdoenksHDB0rua+v0Yv5xk470Fw6dq4X/WAANKSKU2uFii ejApt4S0wLrs9nCFtJVxAPMZLYuSpHgiqzMM62FrvXPeT84WdkGHIo25sbcS7dd6PjZd AdDeOWlEJEG4UJ13MOz3FAy0Egg5YTXADvbloA5dSWId7dKUn0MgUFSWlBZxZE3s101P V3jA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9e+CBzKeUKmTZZ6Rh8Jj2BG4D+N4t5lTvXlmpM7KfINUfF6eS4j uVVHQUyogHY+DSfahK1tvagbB8eBD+LNPjX59a5ucycsUl5LcIn/GQY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Y2yNveAlg+QC7R0L3NU2W/k+Z36KmxRaDiZSi5q2FCWwIVOJpLHSn67AhBIwlyMz8QXGxIVArNixhMgknkk6Q= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:16c2:b0:2cf:eff8:48a1 with SMTP id h2-20020a05600016c200b002cfeff848a1mr5467603wrf.2.1680537605423; Mon, 03 Apr 2023 09:00:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Robert Raszuk Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 17:59:54 +0200 Message-ID: To: Srihari Sangli Cc: "idr@ietf. org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000000d51205f870a7de" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] Generic Metric for the AIGP attribute X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:00:11 -0000 --00000000000000d51205f870a7de Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=E2=80=AFPM Srihari Sangli = wrote: > Robert, > > > > Comments inline. > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > srihari=E2=80=A6 > > > > > > *From: *Robert Raszuk > *Date: *Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 11:38 AM > *To: *Srihari Sangli > *Cc: *idr@ietf. org > *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 > --00000000000000d51205f870a7de Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hey=C2=A0Srihari,=C2=A0

So yes or now.= =C2=A0

You can treat them as different routes or j= ust advertise paths. AIGP is path attribute so we do not need to actually t= urn it into different net.=C2=A0

But irrespective = on how it is done currently the draft seems silent on this and IMO it shoul= d provide such solution day one.=C2=A0

Still like = it though :)=C2=A0 In fact I prefer it vs CAR/CT proposals and I do not see= them as complementary as they do solve the=C2=A0same problem. I like simpl= icity.=C2=A0

Cheers,
R.




On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 5:52=E2=80=AFPM Sr= ihari Sangli <ssangli@juniper.net= > wrote:
=

Robert,=

=C2=A0<= /span>

Comments inline.

=C2=A0<= /span>

Thanks & Regards,=

=C2=A0<= /span>

srihari=E2=80=A6

=C2=A0<= /span>

=C2=A0<= /span>

From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net&g= t;
Date: Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 11:38 AM
To: Srihari Sangli <ssangli@juniper.net>
Cc: idr@ietf. org <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Generic Metric for the AIGP attribute<= /p>

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

=C2=A0<= /span>

Hi=C2=A0Srihari, <= /u>

=C2=A0<= /span>

The proposal is prett= y cool - I like it,=C2=A0

=C2=A0<= /span>

Srihari> Thanks Ro= bert.

=C2=A0<= /span>

=C2=A0<= /span>

[cut]

=C2=A0<= /span>

When ASBR selects bes= t path for a given b_net it is torn apart which one to select as some nodes= in its ASN need both.

=C2=A0<= /span>

=C2=A0<= /span>

Srihari> If the do= main 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 f= urther 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.

=C2=A0<= /span>

=C2=A0<= /span>

=C2=A0<= /span>

=C2=A0<= /span>

=C2=A0<= /span>


Juniper Business Use Only

--00000000000000d51205f870a7de--