Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04 - "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks"

[Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>]

Defining new algorithm also requires the all the node upgrades. Your argument seems not reasonable.

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> On May 4, 2022, at 11:49, Parag Kaneriya <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Mixing data plan using same TLV may lead to forwarding issue. if you do so it is required to upgrade all the node in the network which is practically not possible.  Hence Different TVL for IP flex algo required. 
> 
> Regards
> Parag
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 1:35 PM
> To: Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>; Peter Psenak <ppsenak=[e-mail]>
> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04 - "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks"
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> Aijun,
> 
>> On 03/05/2022 09:59, Aijun Wang wrote:
>> Hi, Peter:
>> The definition of FAPM for IS-IS and OSPF doesn’t prevent from it is used for the intra-area prefixes.
>> If we advertise the different loopback addresses via the FAPM, associate them to different Flex-Algo and related metrics, and does not allocate the MPLS SID, we can achieve the IP-Flex effect then.
> 
> as I said, we can not mix metrics for different data-planes.
> 
>> So, what’s the additional value of the IP-Flexalgo draft then?
> 
> please read the draft. It defines the flex-algo for IP data plane.
> 
> thanks,
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Aijun Wang
>> China Telecom
>> 
>>>> On May 3, 2022, at 14:46, Peter Psenak <ppsenak=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Aijun,
>>> 
>>>> On 03/05/2022 00:47, Aijun Wang wrote:
>>>> Hi, Acee:
>>>> The questions raised at https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/RlHphXCwxMbgGvcBV_m24xiDzS0/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!G17D9bO4s42aBMCFpgMcDLEOsyVydCNbfKW5UAkmHbgLdgKiYWY1ryBShvdDHk53sdkcOyP_dXaI7uY$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/RlHphXCwxMbgGvcBV_m24xiDzS0/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!G17D9bO4s42aBMCFpgMcDLEOsyVydCNbfKW5UAkmHbgLdgKiYWY1ryBShvdDHk53sdkcOyP_dXaI7uY$ > has not been answered.
>>> 
>>> IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV” and “OSPF Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV” are defined for advertisement of algorithm specific metric for inter-area inter-AS prefixes for SR-MPLS data-plane.
>>> 
>>> SR MPLS and IP are independent data-planes used for flex-algo. We can not mix their metric.
>>> 
>>> thanks,
>>> Peter
>>> 
>>>> Aijun Wang
>>>> China Telecom
>>>>>> On May 2, 2022, at 23:00, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The WG last call has completed. We will submit an updated version of the document for publication with the terminology changes based on the discussion amongst the authors, Ketan, Robert, Gyan, and others.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Acee
>>>>> 
>>>>> *From: *Lsr <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=[e-mail]>
>>>>> *Date: *Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:07 PM
>>>>> *To: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>>>>> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>>>>> *Subject: *[Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04 - "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks"
>>>>> 
>>>>> This begins a WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04.  The draft had a lot of support and discussion initially and has been stable for some time. Please review and send your comments, support, or objection to this list before 12 AM UTC on April 22^nd , 2022.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Acee
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lsr mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!G17D9bO4s42aBMCFpgMcDLEOsyVydCNbfKW5UAkmHbgLdgKiYWY1ryBShvdDHk53sdkcOyP_BMwKUC4$
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>