[Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

bruno.decraene@orange.com Tue, 30 June 2020 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B82E3A09A0 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 07:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mYy76URd2NVB for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 07:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33D573A099E for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 07:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr03.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.67]) by opfednr27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 49x6mG4M4Mz4wBp for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:53:02 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1593528782; bh=AMSnlWmJJItkPGMfB1IQ5joMSRQAEix+82qGkON5qAM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=nqeehKpm2H6zZnWG7NMWm8cH7TbYF4iuBLn1d/gUgQQARogw91MKKOMO69xMi71gI y+V4MF8kEoxBSzNMV3SLXT3fvcNL+zYSoF+z/DsYOfpIurzK4b8mU0bd7PJ9gw7HAz B02/K2Ys5c/OoImLEpbVqkIwdhB0dLF6psX6IjUI2wqGqcQe6lnVVfn8Y8RNN7wAa1 Wq5KHhvNfW+V7wAdvvabFkqvdiy/u1NokDOx2EWmtbUhKVMyUJKSe0KOshmnxx5oPN 8mwBJDtR7hWNQa7uAoOS7pAwZnQK57a9cKetprN2w1U+ECsmTkp82XGzIOFEMSKMq2 sN/1XiXQfaWyw==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.95]) by opfednr03.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 49x6mG3g4YzDq7q for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:53:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: bruno.decraene@orange.com
To: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo
Thread-Index: AdZO7Ar6HoVPTBbJS8icPSycN0mE6g==
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:53:01 +0000
Message-ID: <29170_1593528782_5EFB51CE_29170_59_3_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48EBC1F2@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/2XR9Rs3xzgglqCGhB6Q3McDkVSw>
Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:53:07 -0000

Hi all,

I can live with the current text, but I'm just raising the point for discussion (better safe than sorry).

"16.1.1.  IGP Algorithm Types Registry

   This document makes the following registrations in the "IGP Algorithm Types" registry:

      Type: 128-255.

      Description: Flexible Algorithms.
"
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-07#section-16.1.1

This is essentially burning half of the registry for flex-algo. Indeed, any network operator could use any value, e.g. 222, hence the IETF could never define a different usage for this value without creating interop issues for the network operator.

We could discuss whether we really need 127 values for this. (i.e. a network operator requiring 127 flex algo, typically multiplying its IGP FIB entries by 127...).
We could also discuss whether this range could be change to the IANA well-known "Private Use" [1]. This would allow for alternative private usages in the future (e.g. Flexible Alorithms v2).
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-4.1

It seems to me that the latter would equally work for flex algo, but would provide more flexibility :-) for the future.

Regards,
--Bruno

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.