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

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>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; 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