Re: Numbering Exchange Protocol (NEP) ID.

Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net> Tue, 12 December 2017 01:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@oneunified.net>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4FCE127275 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:59:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 RJg4MZZk7eWs for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:59:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.oneunified.net (mail1.oneunified.net [63.85.42.215]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18CC3126D05 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:59:08 -0800 (PST)
X-OneUnified-MailScanner-Watermark: 1513648746.77257@tPCXKhVsVPPM/ZRWYbZF2A
X-OneUnified-MailScanner-From: ray@oneunified.net
X-OneUnified-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-OneUnified-MailScanner-ID: vBC1wwZW006474
X-OneUnified-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
Received: from [10.40.30.10] ([199.68.195.100]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail1.oneunified.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id vBC1wwZW006474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 01:59:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Numbering Exchange Protocol (NEP) ID.
To: rtgwg@ietf.org
References: <CAFsaiiNV67Y82krAbfj4F4ZuNKXcU9gCMJUmdHkqt8hOa0QqHA@mail.gmail.com> <AM4PR0401MB2241409628958946A389E622BD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
From: Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net>
Message-ID: <9d42b742-b253-4755-ad1f-a619172b57d2@oneunified.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:58:58 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0401MB2241409628958946A389E622BD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/RIAFLlDFBT2lTIT8XZynikMzGV8>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 01:59:11 -0000

On 12/11/2017 04:23 AM, Khaled Omar wrote:
>  > Yeah, these are not the people you are looking for. Talk to 
> operators, they will let you know how IGP metrics are useless in today's 
> networks, even the enhanced metrics you are proposing.
> 
> So what is the replacement for IGP metric if they are useless?
> 
> You mentioned as well other protocols, will be great to know more about 
> these protocols.

It isn't necessarily protocols any more.  It has more to do with how 
calculations are made.  They are starting to be made in centrally 
controlled distributed fashion (if that makes sense).  Look at min/max 
linear optimizations as a start where individual nodes make flow 
decisions based upon capacity available and bandwidth available not only 
locally, but on the path(s) towards the destination.  And the 
calculations may be made on a per flow or flow batch mechanism.

Shortest path may no longer win, but the path established locally based 
upon global parameters provided by neighbors as well as a central authority.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.