Hi Robert,
On 30/09/2020 09:28, Robert Raszuk wrote:
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.
above is not really true.
Algo participation needs to be signaled, one way or the other. It's done
for SR as well. There is no need for all routers to understand
flex-algo, as only those that participate (and as a result also
understand it) will be used during the flex-algo path computation and
consequently flex-algo specific forwarding. This applies to flex-algo in
general, regardless of the data plane being used.
thanks,
Peter
Many thx,
R.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:10 AM Huzhibo <huzh...@huawei.com
<mailto: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
<mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 12:05 PM
Cc: lsr@ietf.org <mailto: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
<mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
<mailto:tony...@tony.li>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 10:05 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org
<mailto:40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org <mailto: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
<mailto:40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Please review and comment
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org> <internet-dra...@ietf.org
<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 9:36 AM
>>> To: Parag Kaneriya <pkane...@juniper.net
<mailto:pkane...@juniper.net>>; Shraddha Hegde
>>> <shrad...@juniper.net <mailto:shrad...@juniper.net>>; Ron
Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net <mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>>; Rajesh M
>>> <mraj...@juniper.net <mailto:mraj...@juniper.net>>; William
Britto A J <bwill...@juniper.net <mailto: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 <http://tools.ietf.org>.
>>>
>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
