Jie, The scoop is different, for SR data plane entry uniqueness is in context of SR domain (SID = value + context), while for IP it is global to the routing domain, FIB entry is a destination, nothing more.
Regards, Jeff > On Oct 10, 2020, at 05:47, Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> wrote: > > Hi Jimmie, > > Inline..... > > Ron > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com> > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 11:06 PM > To: Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; > Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@futurewei.com>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for your reply. It aligns with my understanding of FAD, which is just > a set of constraints for path computation. Thus one Flex-Algo ID could be > used with multiple different data planes. Is this understanding correct? > > [RB] I never thought about this. Is there a use-case? I think that it will > work, but I would have to try it before saying for sure. > > If so, my question is about the scenario below: > > A group of nodes in a network support FA-128, a sub-group of them bind FA-128 > to SR SIDs, another sub-group of them bind FA-128 to IP address. When one > node compute an SR path to a destination, can it compute the path to only > pass the nodes which bind FA-128 to SR SIDs, and avoid the nodes which bind > FA-128 to IP address? > > [RB] I don't think so. However, you could achieve the same outcome using link > colors. > > If so, how could this node know the binding of FA to different data planes on > other nodes? > > Best regards, > Jie > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak >> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 11:58 PM >> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com>; Ron Bonica >> <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Yingzhen Qu >> <yingzhen...@futurewei.com>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> >> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for >> draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt >> >> Hi Jimmy, >> >> >>> On 09/10/2020 04:59, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: >>> Hi Ron, >>> >>> Thanks for explaining the difference between IP Flex-Algo and SR >>> Flex-algo. As >> you said, the major difference is the data plane. >>> >>> If my understanding is correct, for one Flex-Algo to be used >>> correctly, the set >> of nodes need to apply consistent constraints in computation, and bind >> the FAD to the same data plane. >>> >>> Is it possible that different nodes may use the same Flex-Algo with >>> different >> data plane, e.g. some with SR-MPLS, some with SRv6, and some with pure >> IP etc., or each Flex-Algo is always associated with only one data >> plane? In the former case, should the flex-algo definition also >> indicate the data plane(s) to be used with the flex-algo? >> >> let me respond to this query, as this is not specific to Ron's draft. >> >> FAD is data plane agnostic and is used by all of them. >> >> thanks, >> Peter >> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Jie >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica >>>> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 4:34 AM >>>> To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@futurewei.com>; Peter Psenak >>>> <ppse...@cisco.com>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> >>>> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for >>>> draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt >>>> >>>> Hi Yingzhen, >>>> >>>> IP Flexible Algorithms are like SR Flexible Algorithms in the >>>> following >> respects: >>>> >>>> - Links have IGP metrics, TE metrics, delay metrics and >>>> administrative colors >>>> - FADs define Flexible Algorithms >>>> >>>> More specifically, the FAD: >>>> >>>> - Indicates which metric type the Flexible Algorithm uses >>>> - Specifies constraints in terms of link colors that are included >>>> or excluded from the Flexible Algorithm. >>>> >>>> The significant difference between IP Flexible Algorithms and SR >>>> Flexible Algorithms is: >>>> >>>> - SR Flexible Algorithms bind FADs to prefix SIDs or SRv6 locators >>>> - IP Flexible Algorithms bind FADs to IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. >>>> >>>> So, IP Flexible Algorithms can be deployed in any IP network, even >>>> in the absence of SR. >>>> >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> >>>> Juniper Business Use Only >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@futurewei.com> >>>> Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2020 2:08 PM >>>> To: Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com>; Gyan Mishra >>>> <hayabusa...@gmail.com>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> >>>> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for >>>> draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt >>>> >>>> [External Email. Be cautious of content] >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Peter, >>>> >>>> Using flex-algo, a SRv6 locator can be associated with a single >>>> algo, which means an IPv6 or IPv4 address can also be associated >>>> with a single algo. So my understanding is Ron's proposal is making >>>> the >> configuration of flex-algo easier? >>>> Instead of using the exclude or include list you can configure a >>>> loopback address to a flex-algo directly? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Yingzhen >>>> >>>> On 10/3/20, 2:47 AM, "Peter Psenak" <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Yingzhen, >>>> >>>> On 02/10/2020 22:15, Yingzhen Qu wrote: >>>>> Hi Peter, >>>>> >>>>> My understanding of flex-algo is that for traffic destined >>>> to a prefix on a particular algo, it can only be routed on routers >>>> belong to that algo, which also means only routers in that algo >>>> calculates how to reach that prefix and install it into the routing >>>> table. It seems to me that using flex-algo (section 12 of the >>>> draft) it's possible to have a loopback address associated with >>>> only one algo, please correct me if I'm missing or misunderstood something. >>>> >>>> you are right. That is exactly what is being done for flex-algo with >>>> SRv6 - locator is associated with a single algo only. The proposal uses >>>> the same concept. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> Peter >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Yingzhen >>>>> >>>>> On 10/2/20, 9:43 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak" >>>> <lsr-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of >>>> ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Gyan, >>>>> >>>>> On 02/10/2020 18:30, Gyan Mishra wrote: >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> With SRv6 and IP based flex algo a generic question as it >> applies >>>> to >>>>>> both. Is it possible to have within a single IGP domain >> different >>>> sets >>>>>> of nodes or segments of the network running different >>>> algorithms. >>>>> >>>>> absolutely. >>>>> >>>>>> From >>>>>> both drafts it sounds like all nodes have to agree on same >>>> algorithm >>>>>> similar to concept of metric and reference bandwidth all >> have to >>>> have >>>>>> the same style metric and play to the same sheet of music. >>>>> >>>>> all participating nodes need to agree on the definition of the >>>> flex-algo >>>>> and advertise the participation. That's it. >>>>> >>>>>> If there was >>>>>> a way to use multiple algorithms simultaneously based on >> SFC >>>> or services >>>>>> and instantiation of specific algorithm based on service to >> be >>>>>> rendered. Doing so without causing a routing loop or sub >>>> optimal >>>>>> routing. >>>>> >>>>> you can certainly use multiple algorithms simultaneously and >> use >>>> algo >>>>> specific paths to forward specific traffic over it. How that is >> done >>>>> from the forwarding perspective depends in which >> forwarding >>>> plane you >>>>> use. Flex-algo control plane is independent of the forwarding >>>> plane. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I thought with flex algo that there exists a feature that on >>>>>> each hop there is a way to specify which algo to use hop by >> hop >>>> similar >>>>>> to a hop by hop policy based routing. >>>>> >>>>> no, there is no hop-by-hop classification, that is problematic >> and >>>> does >>>>> not scale for high speeds. Classification is done at the >> ingress only. >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lsr mailing list >>>>> Lsr@ietf.org >>>>> >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outl >>>> oo >>>> k.com/ >>>> ?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Flsr&data >>>> = >> 0 >>>> 2 >>>> >> *7C01*7Cyingzhen.qu*40futurewei.com*7Cfe03124c6e414e067c2008d86781 >>>> >> 6541*7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc*7C1*7C0*7C63737315273986 >>>> >> 5126&sdata=WI48cEAan*2FOkDPmVXGurEAjPItNGF9p9PDQIlD1ip0g*3D >>>> >> &reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X1fRln9MjimeJcR >>>> EUEIydr-8IIbtNonXMs83eoXvRww6xkaQfVUdNh0kK452GP-G$ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Lsr mailing list >>>> Lsr@ietf.org >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l >>>> sr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TeHgIKM4lUZhkYnt_eFt3SshGJtln8PTqhCuZtODomUQWC_H >>>> z218CE8S8XzlIxAA$ >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list >> Lsr@ietf.org >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr_ >> _;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TeHgIKM4lUZhkYnt_eFt3SshGJtln8PTqhCuZtODomUQWC_Hz218CE >> 8S8XzlIxAA$ _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr