[Lsr] draft-peng-lsr-flex-algo-l2bundles

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Tue, 09 March 2021 10:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.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 F23D73A191F for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 02:08:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 8Uk_xBnOCfiD for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 02:08:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90A033A191E for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 02:08:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1131; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1615284487; x=1616494087; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=mEpz3RrZgFh/nNAcDbJFCaSDb4V6ma82mZ9rDMxnTtI=; b=VrLsCBWNxD9NvMUQtoyrz46J3iODuJNmBsHLYhUQhOL8mbqGCoQn+iUq 6ModXkz8jS2iTC2qCwKyBEjnDfntE1qQf0Ri6pZk459HfGGdgp+YlwZB6 0AdYxVbmIM8wDoAwCMJX19p/Jb+j2R4lMy3FTMoLMq+I/PI3RFmK4LYva o=;
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AYCADhR0dglxbLJq1aHQEBAQEJARIBBQUBQIFPAoN1A?= =?us-ascii?q?ScShHKJBIgqLZpggWgLAQEBDzQEAQGGTiY5BQ0CAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEFAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?gEGBBQBAQEBAQEBAYY3DIZuFXYCJgJfDQgBAYJsgwirdnaBMoVYgzOBRYEPK?= =?us-ascii?q?gGJT4Q1gUlCgREnhzWDUIJfBIMuL3R0PgGdb5xcgwmDL5huBQcDH5NgkBKUZ?= =?us-ascii?q?Z1nC4RxgWwggVkzGggbFYMlTxkNjjiOMEADZwIGCgEBAwmNaAEB?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,234,1610409600"; d="scan'208";a="34035844"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 09 Mar 2021 10:08:05 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 129A849V016378 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 10:08:05 GMT
To: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <1a64e6ae-457c-df93-2a44-5d2c737bcde7@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 11:08:04 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.52, ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/QhNaNar-ytdD-Waj730YEwuUn_I>
Subject: [Lsr] draft-peng-lsr-flex-algo-l2bundles
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: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 10:08:10 -0000

Dear authors,

here are couple of comments to draft-peng-lsr-flex-algo-l2bundles:

1. Flex-algo specification as specified in draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo only 
uses L3 link information for path computation. This is consistent with 
the regular Algo 0 path computation. My preference would be to keep it 
that way.

2. Flex-algo is not a replacement for SRTE. The problem that you are 
trying to solve can be solved by SRTE with the usage of the L2 Adj-SIDs.

3. Usage of the L2 link data for flex-algo path computation is much more 
complex than defining the L-flag in the FAD. You would need to deal with 
things like:

a) conflicting information in L3 and L2 link information
b) missing information in L3 or L2 link information

which would require to define a strict path computation preference rules 
and conflict resolutions that all routers would need to follow. I would 
argue that this is much easier to be done with SRTE, where the logic to 
select the path is a local matter compared to consistency in path 
selection that is required for distributed calculation used by flex-algo.

thanks,
Peter