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

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 04 December 2020 03:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.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 89DCE3A12C3 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:44:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 YTMjOI_DOHn9 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62a.google.com (mail-pl1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF3B13A12C2 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id 4so2369043plk.5 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 19:44:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=IQHw1lzYBZukXAwnb8LQkAKa9a22dVLzk6VSzNIkIFg=; b=njoisWeG7JCo9o25EY+Mwg0MnyQpGdBKrJKyb8q2UB5p5zirvUaTj8tpr01eevTf1v F8UkSbVCflV2/gn6vJvrR4DVSdEyTBjyd0neObk95QdW80XO/i/ah5+8ApqsV54zXDkQ jFvar4F5X1cxH4p6j5Z8rhczSWSRhj5NYc4ZytfRyCdyhtSQHICgAkp1PJchZh+IJUvG 35l6k+bzscO6P4+g2w50j7T8qPyjqxJon6EORGUHhAMuN0Wu0jioc66bHIbgTiw6Y6F3 Wq377Y6uM7bo5eHCRhdMEXDlGNvnLMGmhG0nWxHvOcL1iV/ptE5tVqNANEMJQxHGw2SZ /0kA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=IQHw1lzYBZukXAwnb8LQkAKa9a22dVLzk6VSzNIkIFg=; b=ZT9wqCTkPR+rK41GJ5WxixfM5eR69oXl5+pQ/XmQY8BL24bl5jZKzvNR4BsFboZQ3u GNXwcK/Ae1ae11iRNJq1c82due7Qe994oQ7rvhccFhV4+gY3r77Ch3kiCNHSxftQPbvX yTmJAiAIhnC2h9rZcOYHu81h2CC1hRVe/Vb+UocIYJCLL4AkRPLkXoOqlNYS1ebpxIax eFgq85fSsufCGXfU1pSlL6yi6Pl9u+K2BzPgzqZENKTuMaWuxB5hqEUAOki28Ooq1hB4 UO2suxqktkAHnKPrX4JOLkeq/eHj6U//44VFGXUwAR81LlnEigt1EI0rZDTaf1PdULg6 UPrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533zl9nHV56MHqXAzoYXIsTuLmPlamTpqrCFycuDlsFXPZvYgySl jgxuet+9jq2jSXPjnpOtihhFD8aAvRs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwbxeYaYC+dsInP6er29Fenwh9a1HaVOfmeALYFzz5zfaSglAJYTucnO1zdmhymFffek2eNOw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:117:: with SMTP id p23mr2216473pjz.111.1607053476297; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 19:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (c-73-63-232-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.63.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d19sm644529pjs.0.2020.12.03.19.44.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Dec 2020 19:44:35 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-CF908CB6-84A5-402B-B5F8-F66C55F6E83E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:44:33 -0800
Message-Id: <EF305343-D0AE-4ABE-B760-1E516C5E5DF3@gmail.com>
References: <014401d6c9eb$65c64b00$3152e100$@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>
In-Reply-To: <014401d6c9eb$65c64b00$3152e100$@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18B92)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/QlYuZASB75Y4So7H33AJW-BPA58>
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 03:44:39 -0000

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> 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 <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 9:18 AM
> To: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>om>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> Cc: 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
>  
> 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>et>, 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> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr