Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt

gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com Sat, 17 July 2021 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.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 229793A208E; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 yUhkbREM3Czf; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxus.zteusa.com (mxus.zteusa.com [4.14.134.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35BB73A2090; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 13:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-us.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.36.11.29]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 865CE8223587309C4503; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 04:40:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mgapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.36.9.143]) by mse-us.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 16HKeolZ040669; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 04:40:50 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com)
Received: from mapi (mgapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid81; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 04:40:50 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 04:40:50 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa60f340525e04c495
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202107180440504956563@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
To: ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org
Cc: ginsberg@cisco.com, draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.authors@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-us.zte.com.cn 16HKeolZ040669
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/8K8TOnksXJeUSEsq0zMhzzM-gHY>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt
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: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 20:41:00 -0000

Dear All,
I concur with the arguments presented by Les and Peter. Perhaps the Editors of the WG draft will update the document accordingly.

Regards,
Greg Mirsky
Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部  Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
E: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
www.zte.com.cn
------------------Original Mail------------------
Sender: PeterPsenak
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg);lsr@ietf.org;draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.authors@ietf.org;
Date: 2021/07/14 01:40
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt
Hi,
I'm the co-author of this draft and I have tried to convince the rest of
the co-authors that encoding the new Generic Metric sub-TLV only as a
application independent value is wrong. Unfortunately, my efforts have
failed. As a result, although unwillingly, I have to express my opinions
here and let the WG decide.
1) The usage of the Generic Metric sub-TLV is likely going to be
associated with the applications, Flex-algo being the first one. Generic
Metric sub-TLV can not be used by IGP's native calculation. So having
Generic Metric being encoded only in legacy TLV does not make much sense.
2) TE-metric is defined as application specific attribute by
RFC 8919/8920 and can be advertised in ASLA. The application specific
value advertisement of TE-metric has been already proved in the field.
Generic Metric is semantically very similar to TE-metric, so I see no
reason why application specific encoding should not be supported.
3) Flex-algo specification mandates the usage of the ASLA attributes and
all of the attributes that we are using for flex-algo so far are encoded
in ALSA. Encoding the Generic Metric outside of ALSA violates that
principle.
4) RFC 8919/8920 violation brought by Les below.
thanks,
Peter
On 13/07/2021 17:39, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> Draft authors -
>
> I note that the new version has altered the advertisement of the Generic Metric sub-TLV so that it is no longer supported in the ASLA sub-TLV.
> This is in direct violation of RFC 8919/8920.
>
> For example, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8919.html#section-6.1 states:
>
> "New applications that future documents define to make use of the advertisements defined in this document MUST NOT make use of legacy advertisements."
>
> Flex-algo is a "new application" in the scope of these RFCs.
>
> Please correct this error.
>
> Thanx.
>
>     Les
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lsr  On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 9:12 AM
>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
>>
>>          Title           : Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and
>> Constraints
>>          Authors         : Shraddha Hegde
>>                            William Britto A J
>>                            Rajesh Shetty
>>                            Bruno Decraene
>>                            Peter Psenak
>>                            Tony Li
>>     Filename        : draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt
>>     Pages           : 27
>>     Date            : 2021-07-12
>>
>> Abstract:
>>     Many networks configure the link metric relative to the link
>>     capacity.  High bandwidth traffic gets routed as per the link
>>     capacity.  Flexible algorithms provides mechanisms to create
>>     constraint based paths in IGP.  This draft documents a generic metric
>>     type and set of bandwidth related constraints to be used in Flexible
>>     Algorithms.
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con/
>>
>> There is also an htmlized version available at:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01
>>
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> Lsr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr