Re: [Lsr] Relationship between ASLA and Flex Algo

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Sun, 22 August 2021 18:17 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BY5PR11MB4337EE84B2B31D8EE3698652C1C39@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB4337EE84B2B31D8EE3698652C1C39@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 20:17:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMHifC8do-UmCe1oyh=BebEarodFD02vO19BjRsncZ_eFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006b46c005ca29e9cc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/CxjH9I07SnRSvZspOV5RMApa5tU>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Relationship between ASLA and Flex Algo
Precedence: list

Hi Les,

Well I was not really proposing anything just making an observation. If
anything adding few more SABM bits for flex-algo, but frankly I can live
without them just fine.

In the light of Peter's response the more interesting is the invention of
UDABM field. It is not IETF business so how would anyone accomplish multi
vendor interoperability using it ?

Question: Can I use UDABM to set bits in metrics for use with selective
flex-algo topologies ?

Even if it is "not something that IETF is going to specify" - if we define
something in the protocol should it be clear what is the intended use case
?

Many thx,
R.



On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 4:48 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Robert –
>
>
>
> I have revised the subject since this is a different topic than the
> original thread.
>
>
>
> If you want to discuss this further, please do so in the renamed thread.
>
> Note that I am NOT encouraging you to continue this discussion – I am in
> full agreement with Peter. I do not think what you propose is desirable or
> needed.
>
>
>
>    Les
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:33 AM
> *To:* Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Ron Bonica <
> rbonica@juniper.net>; lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
> draft-hegde-lsr-asla-any-app-00.txt
>
>
>
> 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 ?
>
>
>
> Is there any real definition of "IGP application" LSR WG has converged and
> agreed upon ?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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 ?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>
>
>

[Lsr] Relationship between ASLA and Flex Algo Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Re: [Lsr] Relationship between ASLA and Flex Algo Robert Raszuk
Re: [Lsr] Relationship between ASLA and Flex Algo Peter Psenak
Re: [Lsr] Relationship between ASLA and Flex Algo Robert Raszuk
Re: [Lsr] Relationship between ASLA and Flex Algo Peter Psenak