IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] Question on "Advertisement of Dedicated Metric for Flexible Algorithm in IGP"

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Wed, 23 March 2022 01:22 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
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 A007B3A15DA; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 18:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 okJUrcwft7yq; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 18:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (mail-m17638.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16F2C3A15C5; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 18:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 67E3E1C0625; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:22:16 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: "'Acee Lindem (acee)'" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, draft-lin-lsr-flex-algo-metric@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
References: <4DF67582-B23D-420D-A560-592C3B2D7D55@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DF67582-B23D-420D-A560-592C3B2D7D55@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:22:15 +0800
Message-ID: <013a01d83e54$6e6e0a70$4b4a1f50$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_013B_01D83E97.7C92D110"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQLIwQpkvZuzWEAwVOMSyU3oyk30zarrIxmA
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgPGg8OCBgUHx5ZQUlOS1dZCBgUCR5ZQVlLVUtZV1 kWDxoPAgseWUFZKDYvK1lXWShZQUpMS0tKN1dZLVlBSVdZDwkaFQgSH1lBWRpJTUlWHR1KQh0fGE wfH0oeVRMBExYaEhckFA4PWVdZFhoPEhUdFFlBWU9LSFVKSktITUpVS1kG
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6OiI6LBw5LT5WSh0JHRQiMUID EA8aC1FVSlVKTU9MQkJDTkhNQ0NPVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQUpLQ0pCNwY+
X-HM-Tid: 0a7fb45e0b56d993kuws67e3e1c0625
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Or8iRJ9Wy4GZ1yXc3PvZez-Oz4s>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Question on "Advertisement of Dedicated Metric for Flexible Algorithm in IGP"
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, 23 Mar 2022 01:22:28 -0000

Hi, Acee:

 

The Sub-TLV described in Section 8 and section 9 of the draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo is for Prefix Metric, not for Link Metric.

Such sub-TLV is carried with the prefix advertisement. Will you change the name and application scope of such Sub-TLV?

 

Currently, the name is “IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV”, its application scope is limited in:

“The IS-IS FAPM Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237”.  

 

Same situation as OSPF

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: lsr-bounces@ietf.org <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 2:02 AM
To: draft-lin-lsr-flex-algo-metric@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] Question on "Advertisement of Dedicated Metric for Flexible Algorithm in IGP"

 

Speaking as WG member:

 

Hi Co-authors,

 

I’m read this draft and I really don’t see why you couldn’t just use the algorithm-specific metric in section 8 and 9 and draft-ietf-lsir-flex-algo? It seems to me that the use case is fairly obscure and there is nothing to prevent usage of these metrics for this use case and the draft is simply a matter of semantics. 

 

Thanks,

Acee

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email