Hi, > It uses the HBH option
Currently Ron's proposal seems to work well for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. I hope this discussion will not try to derail it to IPv6 only track. I see no issue with loopback to flexible algorithm mapping in 1:1 fashion. I do however see some issues in deploying such technology as it will only work well if *all* nodes in the network support this new functionality. In contrast in SR world or control plane based TE I proposed or any encapsulation based proposal only anchor nodes need to support the new functionality while rest of the network does not need to be even aware about it. Many thx, R. On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:10 AM Huzhibo <huzh...@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi Joel: > > For details about the method defined in RFC 6550. It uses the HBH > option to carry the RPLInstaceID. The RPLInstaceID and FlexAlgoID are > similar. > > Thanks > > Zhibo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 12:05 PM > Cc: lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for > draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > > I am missing something in this discussion of multiple algorithms. > > My understanding of flex-algo whether for MPLS, SRv6, SRH, or IPv6, is > that you need to associated a forwarding label (e.g. MPLS label or IPv6 > address) with a specific algorithm so that you can compute the next hope > for the forwarding label using the proper algorithm. Then when a packet > arrives, it is simply forwarded according to the forwarding table (e.g. > FIB, LIB, ..) > > If that is so, then I do not understand how a given prefix can be safely > associated with more than one algorithm. I could imagine doing several > calculations according to different algorithms. But how do you decide > which one applies to the packet? As far as I know, flex-algo does not look > at the QoS/CoS/ToS bits. > > Yours, > Joel > > PS: I will admit that it took until an operator described some > "interesting" constraints before I understood why one would even do this. > > On 9/29/2020 11:50 PM, Huzhibo wrote: > > Hi. > > > > Associating multiple algorithms with a given prefix is an interesting > topic, and I think this can simplify the complexity of FlexAlgo. I wonder > if the author would consider using cases with multiple algorithms with a > given prefix. > > > > Thanks > > > > ZHibo > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li > > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 10:05 PM > > To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> > > Cc: lsr@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for > > draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > > > > > > Ron, > > > > This is nice. It makes it clear that constraint based path computation > need not have MPLS overhead for those that don’t want it. > > > > One thing that you don’t talk about is how this gets used, tho that may > be blindingly obvious: you’ll need all nodes placing their prefixes in the > RIB/FIB, where it will need to be selected over other path computation for > the same prefixes. This somewhat precludes the possibility of a given > prefix being useful in multiple flex-algos. > > > > More text on application would be most welcome, just to ensure that > we’re on the same page. > > > > Tony > > > > > >> On Sep 29, 2020, at 6:37 AM, Ron Bonica <rbonica= > 40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Please review and comment > >> > >> Ron > >> > >> > >> > >> Juniper Business Use Only > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org <internet-dra...@ietf.org> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 9:36 AM > >>> To: Parag Kaneriya <pkane...@juniper.net>; Shraddha Hegde > >>> <shrad...@juniper.net>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; Rajesh M > >>> <mraj...@juniper.net>; William Britto A J <bwill...@juniper.net> > >>> Subject: New Version Notification for > >>> draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > >>> > >>> [External Email. Be cautious of content] > >>> > >>> > >>> A new version of I-D, draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > >>> has been successfully submitted by Ron Bonica and posted to the IETF > >>> repository. > >>> > >>> Name: draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo > >>> Revision: 00 > >>> Title: IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flexalgo) In IP Networks > >>> Document date: 2020-09-29 > >>> Group: Individual Submission > >>> Pages: 14 > >>> URL: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bonica- > >>> lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X7PVDP- > >>> FnUA0oCcZMw3Qde6in0C72hu_9hOZ53kPspIarR8fNDyU9Vck80Zbjoij$ > >>> Status: > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-b > >>> o > >>> nica-lsr- > >>> ip-flexalgo/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X7PVDP- > >>> FnUA0oCcZMw3Qde6in0C72hu_9hOZ53kPspIarR8fNDyU9Vck8x7e5ZqI$ > >>> Htmlized: > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/dr > >>> a > >>> ft- > >>> bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X7PVDP- > >>> FnUA0oCcZMw3Qde6in0C72hu_9hOZ53kPspIarR8fNDyU9Vck82w_6CyU$ > >>> Htmlized: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft- > >>> bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X7PVDP- > >>> FnUA0oCcZMw3Qde6in0C72hu_9hOZ53kPspIarR8fNDyU9Vck81_QrJ_p$ > >>> > >>> > >>> Abstract: > >>> An IGP Flexible Algorithm computes a constraint-based path and maps > >>> that path to an identifier. As currently defined, Flexalgo can only > >>> map the paths that it computes to Segment Routing (SR) identifiers. > >>> Therefore, Flexalgo cannot be deployed in the absence of SR. > >>> > >>> This document extends Flexalgo, so that it can map the paths that it > >>> computes to IP addresses. This allows Flexalgo to be deployed in > any > >>> IP network, even in the absence of SR. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > >>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org. > >>> > >>> The IETF Secretariat > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Lsr mailing list > >> Lsr@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
