IETF Logo Mail Archive

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 01:18 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 C6EB63A11DE for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 17:18:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 lfrQbSmT2mKj for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 17:18:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1031.google.com (mail-pj1-x1031.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1031]) (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 997473A11DA for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 17:18:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1031.google.com with SMTP id e5so2134112pjt.0 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 17:18:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=oqXVU2L5wVftLZ/iDWsC6qlkhcSCg+UTmxSZBmKVT8o=; b=aKWgaUn7U/ZM4q53S1rFgy4TYaTwlSdkppPvOwjFsmfJJf3pFTjNQPYkgyOaDBAw7g VWSvQFCgRzBMyHhQOHTSNZY/HmU6mkBMCaiW+D73BM2XDuZ6I+3sYUJRHONic3V6M2p1 wbetf8tl9fr7JNQEAEp0OquI22zjs38RWTGhRnHI3EwqDSB4H7GT1SWW4i3LytIRWXZs 9FEZ99YU45ry/z5Adjdd/vQ3FpV/c0hIPe68rKT0M3IK0KTA9d42mo3T3NqxTExFYALC BZ3d6gaxQgM6wSo2Yl3pYVgIcJhRh39/+jYU0b/d2eDigZRrI2ligQO1/gXYjtrG39A+ lXIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=oqXVU2L5wVftLZ/iDWsC6qlkhcSCg+UTmxSZBmKVT8o=; b=MXaUdFhMz9+6YN3CmFV9WaTUGSTjqhmsayEuV+amMdmunkGdhlrFaP8TQYeo5UmW0E vz7JEMzobtld5qOQGFs3EuiNJIb3J/2hjz5o83bvXpH8RBAM+n37flunfhD4OfclZqJ8 N6QjgsZ0hhX+Nm5V1EpuUnDkRMWvyoeP1wYc9oZucr3UwN2iHvWhEWPJoAZXvaOkOptp He3UgbkAHr0Vj43N2DF5YJ1GnKdCCZ9b1RvvBeq+0RDXURse7h6GCg2vJWVUFxgs4rg0 qdtrDiR9DGFONIvtDJgIlF4b/tnHcJwPz5MA3t+wyOzO8T3d9hNNmg0zvfVtEQ1c6HSh qWXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531XH5+Y8QjOxPx7lQgT2IwxxVe5HoVUOLsHhjXrfxFMcYvR61ID T6upMHkCBh2Ume33m/mxcpk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxTmVTqvomlPjm0DxJX81Eao2OJVcE+Ao5+ezqKJpBeIxzxfAAOi0YEltn168UD+mUGmcscIw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c215:b029:da:b079:b9a3 with SMTP id 21-20020a170902c215b02900dab079b9a3mr1617895pll.67.1607044703018; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 17:18:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (c-73-63-232-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.63.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l15sm2204121pgr.87.2020.12.03.17.18.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Dec 2020 17:18:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 17:18:15 -0800
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <5ec998de-115b-4a0a-818d-5df893082d49@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMED+kWaT8Hr-ohq8U1ADYrcNCQDX-svADzVjbo81urJ8A@mail.gmail.com>
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>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: 5ec998de-115b-4a0a-818d-5df893082d49@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5fc98e5c_66ef438d_14ed6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/yUNshYikUBA3KtjtyMa5954YDY0>
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 01:18:28 -0000

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>, 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email