Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 07 December 2020 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.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 0A5263A161F for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 09:37:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 tVMY5EJlvKwv for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 09:37:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 289303A1609 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 09:37:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id e2so1158872pgi.5 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:37:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=mWF/l4sJs28cEPinKUQn6yfhtc1GQmeN3+x5x/RQA0s=; b=c+bN/aoc6NOrUYhyDqxHqxrUKWC15mmRmhwAOn/1/g2wpUd5Jjj+ViWyI9sbRcQPnU pTtD+ADODkL+Tme3VIQMH13/hEif1RIhj3FMdFbTHBznP7KJ39ZCZiZumUR6AF4wFYvf sM/hcqEZBhpJETYPHKLBYfEoO33NFyzb+d5oO1Aumi9VoCFIApcEL7/XJ5c4o2zL+osk WhWiwnxCgvc8FHYG0QlRusUuSiexfYLFvWlwEROUbE/xlWdYven4ReRDLvO9MQo+1Y4O 2LUKlh+LPte16UG4XVuQb3rLxI5qs+wme4xK9PbeFaTYfGiQnb2T4EZwV0SapnIMR6Pw /ivw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=mWF/l4sJs28cEPinKUQn6yfhtc1GQmeN3+x5x/RQA0s=; b=ZLVXA2LOoPVVjw8pfa9ArPhPNHLoVZrdK5JtKQoTtZu4Ce/+nNa9BkxjvoG2SsO6xg XPvHFPiY6Adm3i+WtqBkPdKdgGupXGmIY6bn+64e2Z09njHJbVtPht7ZTBB0KnXWIs9E jRdA75G72/toFoQ5qrM0P2puvODGfvl9pMt0uwT7FZkKBJk1jWdgTR4OH0dJk6qq7Z8O fp5SnDfu36QOSf+FBl1lCzwF9fodtGJ62n8tYPb3m5X2b6DhjzKuYTLWdmQCfVlCz8zH 7MFKqPfpVKTyeyrpoovE7FQ4iPsnZ9O5jTzK1h6mFL85vLwoIIfgbCxKxmc6g6WdD8ja qPMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531v9Pxs7pmrJ6qwZDuHDcD1wQEVycX5QiIO+cXrS7LpFY2YNTCv /Q+83JmMu8xNh5lk+200ErY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwGGiNxw26Vuhu81+vAy6XDxjY4B2TDSnOqrNL57TLb8S8zi9FsL6fnro0sWUd9M2a4P+MyUA==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:2d1:0:b029:19d:d060:2444 with SMTP id 200-20020a6202d10000b029019dd0602444mr11379497pfc.10.1607362661671; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:37:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (c-73-63-232-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.63.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a17sm3924836pgw.80.2020.12.07.09.37.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:37:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 09:37:33 -0800
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "=?utf-8?Q?li=5Fzhenqiang=40hotmail.com?=" <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>
Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Message-ID: <d6bb8e70-d9ed-4284-b135-6038ee0a511e@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <MEYP282MB20221971137C429BF2A10F07FCF10@MEYP282MB2022.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <777B2AC4-CACF-4AB0-BFC7-B0CFFA881EEB@cisco.com> <CAOj+MMEmmFfN228okgFGM09qaiB8s0nS_8rQEqwBVsdJidy8XA@mail.gmail.com> <F1AE46BD-5809-467A-9CE1-69C08406CB40@gmail.com> <CAOj+MMED+kWaT8Hr-ohq8U1ADYrcNCQDX-svADzVjbo81urJ8A@mail.gmail.com> <5ec998de-115b-4a0a-818d-5df893082d49@Spark> <MEYP282MB20221971137C429BF2A10F07FCF10@MEYP282MB2022.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: d6bb8e70-d9ed-4284-b135-6038ee0a511e@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5fce6862_374a3fe6_14ed6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Kz9EWXSXk5hf7v9uz2LEMYOsRd8>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01
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: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 17:37:44 -0000

Zhenqiang,

please see inline

Cheers,
Jeff


4. I want to know the path for a specific IP Flex-Algorithm is calculated distributedly by each nodes paticipating this Flex-Algorithm or calculated centralized by an controller? I wonder we can guarantee the loop free  path with IP Flex-Algorithm especially when the path is calculated distributedly?

The valid topology must consist of a set of connected routers sharing a common Calc-Type, then loop-free calculation is done accordingly


Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com

From: Jeff Tantsura
Date: 2020-12-04 09:18
To: Tony Li; Robert Raszuk
CC: lsr; Acee Lindem \(acee\)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01
Anything else than IGP metric based SPT is considered TE. Looking holistically - topology virtualization (or similar) could have been a better name.

Cheers,
Jeff
On Dec 3, 2020, 4:25 PM -0800, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>et>, wrote:
	Hi Tony,

The moment I hit "Send" I knew that this response may be coming as it really depends what is one's definition of TE.

If indeed IGP TE is anything more then SPF - then sure we can call it a TE feature.

However, while a very useful and really cool proposal, my point is to make sure this is not oversold - that's all.

Best,
R.


> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:13 AM Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> >
> > > However I really do not think that what Flexible Algorithm offers can be compared or even called as Traffic Engineering (MPLS or SR).
> > >
> > > Sure Flex Algo can accomplish in a very elegant way with little cost multi topology routing but this is not full TE. It can also direct traffic based on static or dynamic network preferences (link colors, rtt drops etc ... ),  but again it is not taking into account load of the entire network and IMHO has no way of accomplish TE level traffic distribution.
> > >
> > > Just to make sure the message here is proper.
> >
> >
> > It’s absolutely true that FlexAlgo (IP or SR) has limitations. There’s no bandwidth reservation. There’s no dynamic load balancing. No, it’s not a drop in replacement for RSVP. No, it does not supplant SR-TE and a good controller. Etc., etc., etc….
> >
> > However I don’t feel that it’s fair to say that FlexAlgo can’t be called Traffic Engineering.  After all TE is a very broad topic. Everything that we’ve done that’s more sophisticated than simple SPF falls in the area of Traffic Engineering.  Link coloring and SRLG alone clearly fall into that bucket.
> >
> > I’ll grant you that it may not have the right TE features for your application, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not sufficient for some.  Please don’t mislead people by saying that it’s not Traffic Engineering.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr