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

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Fri, 04 December 2020 03:13 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
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 3CB6C3A1276 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:13:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 tDsZuxIEm9lC for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:13:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-m127101.qiye.163.com (mail-m127101.qiye.163.com [115.236.127.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A2193A1274 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:13:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by mail-m127101.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 5EB9E45118; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:13:11 +0800 (CST)
From: "Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: "'Jeff Tantsura'" <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "'Tony Li'" <tony1athome@gmail.com>, "'Robert Raszuk'" <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "'lsr'" <lsr@ietf.org>, "'Acee Lindem \(acee\)'" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <777B2AC4-CACF-4AB0-BFC7-B0CFFA881EEB@cisco.com> <CAOj+MMEmmFfN228okgFGM09qaiB8s0nS_8rQEqwBVsdJidy8XA@mail.gmail.com> <F1AE46BD-5809-467A-9CE1-69C08406CB40@gmail.com> <CAOj+MMED+kWaT8Hr-ohq8U1ADYrcNCQDX-svADzVjbo81urJ8A@mail.gmail.com> <5ec998de-115b-4a0a-818d-5df893082d49@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <5ec998de-115b-4a0a-818d-5df893082d49@Spark>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:13:10 +0800
Message-ID: <014401d6c9eb$65c64b00$3152e100$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0145_01D6CA2E.73EA4E50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQH8VnFOXLr2+nfgZyr1vMlff0Wn2AIpsSyTAjDsTs0Bc0VtJgG5vPkmqV7q2BA=
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZS1VLWVdZKFlBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1 kPCRoVCBIfWUFZSEhNGB8dGU4ZGB4YVkpNS0xLTkpOQkpNT0JVEwETFhoSFyQUDg9ZV1kWGg8SFR 0UWUFZT0tIVUpKS09ISFVLWQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6OU06Eyo*Nz8UTTgSSg1NDhVR Kw1PCkxVSlVKTUtMS05KTkJJS0NPVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQUpNQkpINwY+
X-HM-Tid: 0a762bbd3f7d9865kuuu5eb9e45118
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/w7WqgKZSMoJg7NYIabR5X3odKb4>
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 03:13:19 -0000

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 <mailto:robert@raszuk.net> >, 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr