Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-hegde-lsr-asla-any-app-00.txt

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hey Peter,

> And I will perhaps say it again that to me flex-algo is more of a
> > mechanism to build new applications then NEW APPLICATION itself.
>
> no, flex-algo is a single application, it's not a mechanism to create
> new applications. The fact that you can create many constraints
> topologies using flex-algo, does not mean these should be considered as
> different apps. You have to put and keep clear borders at clear places.
> We have them defined by ASLA and by base flex-algo draft.
>

Why each constrained topology can not be intuitively called a different
network application ?

Is there any real definition of "IGP application" LSR WG has converged and
agreed upon ?

See your take that it is implicitly defined in flex-algo draft by setting
one bit to it in SABM is IMO pretty weak. Maybe it would hold if you forbid
to use UDABM for flex-algo metrics, but I do not see such restriction
anywhere in flex-algo draft nor in ASLA drafts. That means that
implementation may allow it.

So flex algo is a single app if we use SABM, but it can be multiple apps if
we use UDABM ? Don't you think this is a bit loose definition ?

Cheers,
R.