[Lsr] Questions about draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-06

<peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn> Sat, 29 February 2020 06:42 UTC

Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.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 6A2193A0971 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 22:42:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 28G_QZmoensM for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 22:42:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FA9A3A096E for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 22:42:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id BA3CAC01C05932E5F9E1; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 14:42:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp04.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.203]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 01T6fx4b075938; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 14:41:59 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 14:41:59 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 14:41:59 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5e5a07b7a24ea1e7
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202002291441590769964@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
To: ppsenak@cisco.com
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 01T6fx4b075938
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/PX3HFSsYhF3-XzLbVgKPFaXbY_g>
Subject: [Lsr] Questions about draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-06
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: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:42:24 -0000

Hi Peter






Please see the difference rules of TE metric in Flex-algo draft and RFC5305.


For  the link without TE metric attribute, in Flex-algo draft it will be excluded from FA plane that configured TE metric type, but in RFC5305 the IGP metric of the link can be as replacement.


Please see if they can be consistent ?





Flex-algo draft:

section 12.  Calculation of Flexible Algorithm Paths

Rule-5:

 5.  If the Flex-Algorithm definition uses other than IGP metric

      (Section 5), and such metric is not advertised for the particular

      link in a topology for which the computation is done, such link

      MUST be pruned from the computation.  A metric of value 0 MUST NOT

      be assumed in such case.







RFC5305:

section 3.7.  Sub-TLV 18: Traffic Engineering Default Metric

This sub-TLV is optional.  This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in

   each extended IS reachability TLV.  If a link is advertised without

   this sub-TLV, traffic engineering SPF calculations MUST use the

   normal default metric of this link, which is advertised in the fixed

   part of the extended IS reachability TLV.