Re: [Lsr] Hi, Here are some clarification questions about the flex-algo draft.
Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Thu, 26 April 2018 09:52 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 555A3126D05 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 02:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, 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 ivHSk8yBl3WI for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 02:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52C291270A3 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 02:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2313; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1524736319; x=1525945919; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6z/hWRLVA/XLmqc5N0EoxBF0EY7qmLDU9pg8CQbkHLQ=; b=C2TOIYQWO0YJ82M/vtZtAiMz9ccUB4ezhqtoLN10aL4+CpOidBIhfSSS Yt+45qNWaSA0vOI35yQtjXog5sgqwy0xd9J1DvhXfeb4mWw7kQPioi7mh tNOsgfwm47TMrW8BREfks1aNcyE2sLm2rT75N4zg2DhVAezEe2szW2vDy g=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,330,1520899200"; d="scan'208";a="3366089"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Apr 2018 09:51:57 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.18] ([10.147.24.18]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w3Q9puSS017461; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:51:56 GMT
Message-ID: <5AE1A13C.2090005@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:51:56 +0200
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
References: <06CF729DA0D6854E8C1E5121AC3330DF9E0A5D2A@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <06CF729DA0D6854E8C1E5121AC3330DF9E0A5D2A@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/kLzl2vVEb4BdigARzGY49EXEoWM>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Hi, Here are some clarification questions about the flex-algo draft.
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:52:01 -0000
Hi ZhiBo On 26/04/18 09:50 , Huzhibo wrote: > Hi, > > Here are some clarification questions about the flex-algo draft. > > 1. As described in section 5, in path computation for a flex-algorithm, > the node firstly needs to prune the links not included for this > flex-algorithm, then run SPF or other algorithm within the pruned > topology. If a node supports multiple algorithms, does this mean the > node needs to maintain multiple pruned topologies? no, there is no need to maintain any additional topologies for Flex-algo functionality. There is however a need to run multiple SPFs, one for each Flex-algo in which the calculating node participates. > > 2. If one path computed in algorithm-1 with latency metric and another > path computed in algorithm-2 with bandwidth metric traverse the same > link(s) in the network, can the latency or bandwidth SLA be guaranteed > for the service? Or the path may need to be re-computed and adjusted to > another link to avoid potential performance degradation? above depends on how you define you Flex-algo 1 and 2 respectively. If you define it in a way that they may share links, they may impact each other. If you define in in a way that they would never share any link, they would not impact each other. You choose the behavior you need - that's the beauty of the Flex-algo solution. thanks, Peter > > ZhiBo Hu > > *发件人:*Lsr [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] *代表 *Acee Lindem (acee) > *发送时间:*2018年4月17日22:44 > *收件人:*lsr@ietf.org > *主题:*[Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for Flex Algorithm Drafts > > This begins a two-week adoption poll for the following Flex Algorithm > drafts: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-flex-algo/ > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ppsenak-ospf-sr-flex-algo/ > > The adoption poll will end at 12:00 AM EST on May 2^nd , 2018. Please > indicate your support of opposition of the drafts. > > Additionally, the authors are amenable to combining the drafts into a > single draft. If you have an opinion, please state that as well. > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >