Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Wed, 14 July 2021 08:40 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 840993A18BD; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 01:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.499, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=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 rdAe1Wo83H1j; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 01:40:03 -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 4D4C73A18BE; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 01:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3925; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1626252003; x=1627461603; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/cTocVW3zUe1mbXCumeWrsPk2SeAKvpG6V+H+VhS+1Y=; b=TRMorr5u0FtM8c9WEppXjMEiIKusQj4cMlKOV0UolhCqkCv2gCsKk6FU 1av4uwAxOj6zSYUGzyYseXIWeGzjruIPWh958WIDwxRckLN8AJNEKY0gl 9QRvj+HBrlzNKaZIivH7dedLP3g+fWdAaAkVOlA1FWwYtOrZi6/m8EGNl 4=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,238,1620691200"; d="scan'208";a="37786406"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 14 Jul 2021 08:40:01 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.51] (ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com [10.60.140.51]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 16E8e010007904; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 08:40:01 GMT
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.authors@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.authors@ietf.org>
References: <162610633043.27855.894457295247836379@ietfa.amsl.com> <BY5PR11MB4337FFCC231A3DC303E9F29AC1149@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <b5badef1-9baa-6183-85df-84ef57446ff7@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:40:00 +0200
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
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB4337FFCC231A3DC303E9F29AC1149@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.51, ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/kRKmBdjLaXmAS3LU28I-2tHHO-8>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt
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: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 08:40:10 -0000

Hi,

I'm the co-author of this draft and I have tried to convince the rest of 
the co-authors that encoding the new Generic Metric sub-TLV only as a 
application independent value is wrong. Unfortunately, my efforts have 
failed. As a result, although unwillingly, I have to express my opinions 
here and let the WG decide.


1) The usage of the Generic Metric sub-TLV is likely going to be 
associated with the applications, Flex-algo being the first one. Generic 
Metric sub-TLV can not be used by IGP's native calculation. So having 
Generic Metric being encoded only in legacy TLV does not make much sense.

2) TE-metric is defined as application specific attribute by
RFC 8919/8920 and can be advertised in ASLA. The application specific 
value advertisement of TE-metric has been already proved in the field. 
Generic Metric is semantically very similar to TE-metric, so I see no 
reason why application specific encoding should not be supported.

3) Flex-algo specification mandates the usage of the ASLA attributes and 
all of the attributes that we are using for flex-algo so far are encoded 
in ALSA. Encoding the Generic Metric outside of ALSA violates that 
principle.

4) RFC 8919/8920 violation brought by Les below.


thanks,
Peter




On 13/07/2021 17:39, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> Draft authors -
> 
> I note that the new version has altered the advertisement of the Generic Metric sub-TLV so that it is no longer supported in the ASLA sub-TLV.
> This is in direct violation of RFC 8919/8920.
> 
> For example, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8919.html#section-6.1 states:
> 
> "New applications that future documents define to make use of the advertisements defined in this document MUST NOT make use of legacy advertisements."
> 
> Flex-algo is a "new application" in the scope of these RFCs.
> 
> Please correct this error.
> 
> Thanx.
> 
>     Les
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 9:12 AM
>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
>>
>>          Title           : Flexible Algorithms: Bandwidth, Delay, Metrics and
>> Constraints
>>          Authors         : Shraddha Hegde
>>                            William Britto A J
>>                            Rajesh Shetty
>>                            Bruno Decraene
>>                            Peter Psenak
>>                            Tony Li
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt
>> 	Pages           : 27
>> 	Date            : 2021-07-12
>>
>> Abstract:
>>     Many networks configure the link metric relative to the link
>>     capacity.  High bandwidth traffic gets routed as per the link
>>     capacity.  Flexible algorithms provides mechanisms to create
>>     constraint based paths in IGP.  This draft documents a generic metric
>>     type and set of bandwidth related constraints to be used in Flexible
>>     Algorithms.
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con/
>>
>> There is also an htmlized version available at:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01
>>
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> Lsr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 
>