Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-hegde-lsr-asla-any-app-00.txt

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

On 22/08/2021 15:33, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hey Peter,
> 
>      > And I will perhaps say it again that to me flex-algo is more of a
>      > mechanism to build new applications then NEW APPLICATION itself.
> 
>     no, flex-algo is a single application, it's not a mechanism to create
>     new applications. The fact that you can create many constraints
>     topologies using flex-algo, does not mean these should be considered as
>     different apps. You have to put and keep clear borders at clear places.
>     We have them defined by ASLA and by base flex-algo draft.
> 
> 
> Why each constrained topology can not be intuitively called a different 
> network application ?


1. because flex-algo draft (which has been last called by the LSR WG 
already) defines flex-algo as a single application from the ASLA 
perspective.

2. I do not see why one would want to make application out of each 
constrained topology.

> 
> Is there any real definition of "IGP application" LSR WG has 
> converged and agreed upon ?

no, but there is a document that defines flex-algo as a single application.


> 
> See your take that it is implicitly defined in flex-algo draft by 
> setting one bit to it in SABM is IMO pretty weak. Maybe it would hold if 
> you forbid to use UDABM for flex-algo metrics, but I do not see such 
> restriction anywhere in flex-algo draft nor in ASLA drafts. That means 
> that implementation may allow it.

usage of bits in UDABM is not specified. It's user defined and not 
standardized by IETF
> 
> So flex algo is a single app if we use SABM, but it can be multiple apps 
> if we use UDABM ? Don't you think this is a bit loose definition ?

no, because the UDABM bits is not something that IETF is going to specify.

thanks,
Peter


> 
> Cheers,
> R.
>