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

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Fri, 04 December 2020 06:56 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 53ECF3A13C5 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 22:56:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.658
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.658 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 kZR16s4DCI9E for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 22:56:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-m127101.qiye.163.com (mail-m127101.qiye.163.com [115.236.127.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E80673A13C6 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 22:56:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by mail-m127101.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 9FE2547E63; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:56:43 +0800 (CST)
From: "Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: "'Jeff Tantsura'" <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Tony Li'" <tony1athome@gmail.com>, "'Robert Raszuk'" <robert@raszuk.net>, "'lsr'" <lsr@ietf.org>, "'Acee Lindem \(acee\)'" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <014401d6c9eb$65c64b00$3152e100$@tsinghua.org.cn> <EF305343-D0AE-4ABE-B760-1E516C5E5DF3@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <EF305343-D0AE-4ABE-B760-1E516C5E5DF3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:56:42 +0800
Message-ID: <016901d6ca0a$a0217800$e0646800$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_016A_01D6CA4D.AE463EA0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIwqfaw0ZNJA4qz9e8ZEZ8X4RGIUQK6ahjTqRzq49A=
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZS1VLWVdZKFlBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1 kPCRoVCBIfWUFZS08dSRoeHhkdSENDVkpNS0xLTU5LS0hCT0xVEwETFhoSFyQUDg9ZV1kWGg8SFR 0UWUFZT0tIVUpKS09ISFVLWQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6PxA6Szo5PD8IPjgMTjQ9DCwa PxJPFEJVSlVKTUtMS01OS0tPT0pKVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQUlMS09ONwY+
X-HM-Tid: 0a762c89e73d9865kuuu9fe2547e63
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/PIyNcQNHxajHYk8p8zRoY8aN78U>
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 06:56:56 -0000

Hi, Jeff:

 

Maybe I should add one more sentence to follow your statement, then the responses looks more consecutive:

 

Anything else than IGP metric based SPT is considered TE.----But operator are expecting new TE solution that can meet the dynamic environment, not the static resource allocation. -------Static TE can’t meet the requirement of real world. If the LFA mechanism can only be achieved within each IP-FLEX algorithm, is it just another static resource allocation and prefix assignment method?

 

Are the above statement true or acceptable?

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

 

 

From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 11:45 AM
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Cc: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>om>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>et>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>rg>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

 

Hi Aijun,

 

How’s my response triggered yours?

Where do you see my talking about static vs dynamic TE?

It you are looking for a philosophical angle - perhaps we could talk about centralized vs distributed TE and complexity of each one.

 

Regards,

Jeff





On Dec 3, 2020, at 19:13, Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn <mailto:wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> > wrote:



Hi, Jeff:

 

Static TE can’t meet the requirement of real world.

If the LFA mechanism can only be achieved within each IP-FLEX algorithm, is it just another static resource allocation and prefix assignment method?

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: lsr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>  <lsr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org> > On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 9:18 AM
To: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com <mailto:tony1athome@gmail.com> >; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net <mailto:robert@raszuk.net> >
Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> >; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> >
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 <mailto:robert@raszuk.net> >, 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr