Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Wed, 26 May 2021 16:57 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 5120D3A0B69; Wed, 26 May 2021 09:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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 k3cHvcDsnHcf; Wed, 26 May 2021 09:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED6A73A0B63; Wed, 26 May 2021 09:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=860; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1622048245; x=1623257845; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rhvCjZ+rJ++lY+k0X3g5fPgDWaV3hhh7AA95nJO91aY=; b=dJ9eoWJpiG7RAtBXf2tVG/TURWV4sbogjqox6Ik/EuZlvWdMznQ0MU3O 8EsNNvYA0WaiKaFAh2cpEqVrFBcrYObGuFd8jmDhbQn6BDMbupPZ3AU/H boxus/kvWnui4K8Qcxt+poiAXom2pX5TvK9j5adpqqGllr5uuuoA+g8xV 8=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,331,1613433600"; d="scan'208";a="36377925"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 May 2021 16:57:23 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 14QGvMgn010265; Wed, 26 May 2021 16:57:22 GMT
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, Ketan Jivan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org" <draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con@ietf.org>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <0BAE6DBA-04A3-4A3A-A1E3-14EFAA0FBE68@cisco.com> <MW3PR11MB4570FB10A5788FDA3BBA6C91C1269@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <AE6570D7-062E-4F8A-92E8-120FA52D4785@tony.li> <MW3PR11MB4570BF55DAA30AAB9E25D7EEC1249@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <82697C23-4283-4646-A266-F67828337C5C@tony.li>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <8c49f2d0-0842-bff5-9121-7ceb37781a38@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 18:57:22 +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: <82697C23-4283-4646-A266-F67828337C5C@tony.li>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.52, ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/JYaaYxZV8cq31AyInjH35PmFSI8>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and Constraints" - draft-hegde-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-02
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, 26 May 2021 16:57:30 -0000

Hi Tony, Ketan,

On 26/05/2021 18:40, Tony Li wrote:

>> */[KT] Generic Metric is used for the links. When we get to the 
>> computation of inter-area or external routes, we will need to get into 
>> FAPM. The draft at a minimum should discuss the applicability of the 
>> Generic Metric and its use as FAPM. Now, if we do make the Generic 
>> Metric size variable (as suggested above), then we will likely need a 
>> new TLV for a variable size FAPM equivalent?/*
> 
> 
> We would need a new TLV regardless of the metric size as the FAPM TLV 
> only carries the default metric. We are not proposing that TLV at this 
> time. That’s future work.

we only need the new TLV to carry FAPM if we make the Generic Metric's 
size variable. If we keep it fixed size, we should be fine with the 
existing FAPM.


thanks,
Peter
> 
> Tony
>