Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-17 (was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt)

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Wed, 28 July 2021 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.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 7BAB63A1396; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 07:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.499, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 erYorrI8Vvnz; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 07:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A68AC3A1393; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 07:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10257; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1627483869; x=1628693469; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qcqLWwt1oy0Oi/EAY0CHJVk11q749Tv2tkBzTNjDaR0=; b=WLXKRV4w8m6NgB3LzOpv7SsA3qTvpQcSXzeZkAR0uKN53pp1I7+Rsokv Mha5JLhARIUItDj2NAlscRHxgCPQPgimviHVFiEBygu3EPCH7r5ObFw8N mKmJXgLxX1cs9EnrQsZOzMcleq1FD6U1Gs4gFbpkhOESiE513yVIsLTYK w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,276,1620691200"; d="scan'208";a="35840957"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 28 Jul 2021 14:51:08 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.19] ([10.147.24.19]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 16SEp7Bf007165; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:51:07 GMT
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, "gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com" <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.authors@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.authors@ietf.org>
References: <BYAPR05MB5318D538B5D48426754D2145AEE89@BYAPR05MB5318.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <9651f033-223e-2e5f-fa25-cbd3d99d7bae@cisco.com> <BYAPR05MB5318C19BC36044885FBFD668AEE89@BYAPR05MB5318.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <873ba753-2382-57a5-0bc0-246cd75ae413@cisco.com> <BL0PR05MB5316AF7F7E7243F443F885A8AEE99@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <d104ecea-0f12-5bee-9b67-e6fafbbe6bc8@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 16:51:07 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR05MB5316AF7F7E7243F443F885A8AEE99@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.147.24.19, [10.147.24.19]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/9B1IFy5AOxn9MvM00r8ksFKiV4U>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-17 (was: 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: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:51:16 -0000

Ron,

the problem in hand is whether Generic Metric should be defined as an 
application specific attribute or not. I have explained several times 
why making it application specific makes sense and also provided 
examples of other metrics that are defined as application specific (TE 
metric, Delay). There also seems to be sufficient support from the WG to 
make Generic Metric an application specific link attribute.

If Generic Metric is defined as an application specific attribute, it 
MUST be advertised in ASLA and only ASLA advertisement MUST be used by 
flex-algo application.

The discussion about application specific nature of Generic Metric is 
orthogonal to what draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-17 says.

If you feel the text in draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-17 needs to be 
improved, we can do that once the discussion about the Generic Metric 
being application specific or not is closed.

thanks,
Peter


On 27/07/2021 19:32, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> I agree that we will need to update the flexago draft. But before we do that, can you explain why we need to maintain mandatory use of ASLA?
> 
> AFAIKS, by their nature, some attributes are generic while others are application specific. For example, a link's total physical bandwidth is generic, by nature. It will always be the same for all applications. By contrast, the amount of bandwidth available to a specific application is application specific, by nature. It can be different for each application.
> 
>                                                            Ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 2:45 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>; gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com; lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.authors@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-17 (was: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt)
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> On 26/07/2021 20:30, Ron Bonica wrote:
>> Peter,
>>
>> I think that we are using the term "link attribute" differently. IMO, a link attribute is any attribute of a link, regardless of whether it is advertised in the fixed portion of a link advertisement or in a TLV.
>>
>> Are you assuming otherwise? If so, why?
> 
> when we are talking about the advertisement of the link attributes, we are talking about something that is advertised separately and optionally, not something that is part of the fixed portion of the link advertisement.
> 
> If that is not clear, I can make that statement in the flex-algo draft, but that would not remove the mandatory usage of the ASLA for the
> (optional) attributes.
> 
> 
> thanks,
> Peter
> 
>>
>>                                                              Ron
>>
>>
>>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
>> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 1:31 PM
>> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>; Acee Lindem (acee)
>> <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>> <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>;
>> gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com; lsr@ietf.org
>> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.authors@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-17 (was: [Lsr] I-D Action:
>> draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt)
>>
>> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>>
>>
>> Hi Ron,
>>
>> On 26/07/2021 18:36, Ron Bonica wrote:
>>> Acee,
>>>
>>> We may also need to clean up an inconsistency in draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-17. Section 12 of that document says:
>>>
>>> "   Link attribute advertisements that are to be used during Flex-
>>>       Algorithm calculation MUST use the Application-Specific Link
>>>       Attribute (ASLA) advertisements defined in [RFC8919] or [RFC8920],
>>>       unless, in the case of IS-IS, the L-Flag is set in the ASLA
>>>       advertisement.  If the L-Flag is set, as defined in [RFC8919]
>>>       Section 4.2 subject to the constraints discussed in Section 6 of the
>>>       [[RFC8919], then legacy advertisements are to be used instead. "
>>>
>>> However, Flex-Algorithm calculations include the IGP metric.
>>
>>
>> IGP metric is not advertised as a link attribute, it is part of the fixed portion of the link advertisement. So the above text is not affecting the usage if the IGP metric.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 10:13 AM
>>> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>>> <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>;
>>> gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com>;
>>> lsr@ietf.org
>>> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.authors@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt
>>>
>>> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Ron,
>>>
>>> So perhaps, generic metric is not a legacy advertisement as strictly defined. However, we don't want to go down the path of treating new attributes in the same manner as legacy attributes. It seems the discussion is progressing and hopefully we will have a resolution.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>>
>>> On 7/22/21, 1:28 PM, "Ron Bonica" <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>        Acee,
>>>
>>>        I don't think that draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con violates RFC 8919.
>>>
>>>        Section 6.1 of RFC 8919 says:
>>>
>>>        " New applications that future documents define to make use of the
>>>           advertisements defined in this document MUST NOT make use of legacy
>>>           advertisements.  This simplifies deployment of new applications by
>>>           eliminating the need to support multiple ways to advertise attributes
>>>           for the new applications."
>>>
>>>        Section 3 of RFC 8919 defines legacy advertisements. The definition of legacy
>>>        advertisements does not include new attributes such as
>>>        generic metric. Therefore draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con does not
>>>        violate RFC 8919
>>>
>>>        Relevant text from Section 3 of RFC 8919 is included below for convenience.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>>        RFC 8919, Section 3
>>>        ---------------------------
>>>        3.  Legacy Advertisements
>>>
>>>
>>>        Existing advertisements used in support of RSVP-TE include sub-TLVs
>>>           for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 and TLVs for Shared Risk Link
>>>           Group (SRLG) advertisement.
>>>
>>>           Sub-TLV values are defined in the "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141,
>>>           222, and 223" registry.
>>>
>>>           TLVs are defined in the "TLV Codepoints Registry".
>>>
>>>        3.1.  Legacy Sub-TLVs
>>>
>>>           +======+====================================+
>>>           | Type | Description                        |
>>>           +======+====================================+
>>>           | 3    | Administrative group (color)       |
>>>           +------+------------------------------------+
>>>           | 9    | Maximum link bandwidth             |
>>>           +------+------------------------------------+
>>>           | 10   | Maximum reservable link bandwidth  |
>>>           +------+------------------------------------+
>>>           | 11   | Unreserved bandwidth               |
>>>           +------+------------------------------------+
>>>           | 14   | Extended Administrative Group      |
>>>           +------+------------------------------------+
>>>           | 18   | TE Default Metric                  |
>>>           +------+------------------------------------+
>>>           | 33   | Unidirectional Link Delay          |
>>>           +------+------------------------------------+
>>>           | 34   | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay  |
>>>           +------+------------------------------------+
>>>           | 35   | Unidirectional Delay Variation     |
>>>           +------+------------------------------------+
>>>           | 36   | Unidirectional Link Loss           |
>>>           +------+------------------------------------+
>>>           | 37   | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth  |
>>>           +------+------------------------------------+
>>>           | 38   | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth |
>>>           +------+------------------------------------+
>>>           | 39   | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth  |
>>>           +------+------------------------------------+
>>>
>>>               Table 1: Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25,
>>>                         141, 222, and 223
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        Juniper Business Use Only
>>>
>>>        -----Original Message-----
>>>        From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
>>>        Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 1:21 PM
>>>        To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>; gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com; ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
>>>        Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.authors@ietf.org
>>>        Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action:
>>> draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt
>>>
>>>        [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>>>
>>>
>>>        Speaking as WG member:
>>>
>>>        I agree with Les. The Generic Metric MUST be advertised as an ASLA for usage in Flex Algorithm. Additionally, it may be advertised as a sub-TLV in IS-IS link TLVs. However, the latter encoding really shouldn't be used for new applications (at least that is my reading of RFC 8919).
>>>
>>>        For OSPF, I'd certainly hope one wouldn't originate additional LSAs when an ASLA can support the legacy applications with the ASLA mask.
>>>
>>>        Thanks,
>>>        Acee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
>