Hi Aijun,
On 03/12/2020 02:31, Aijun Wang wrote:
Hi, authors:
Want to confirm one thing:
Does the mechanism described in this draft support the automatic
fallback from “flex algorithm” to the “traditional least-cost algorithm”?
no.
That is to say, can one prefix exists both in the “flex algorithm” table
and “traditional least-cost algorithm” table, the router prefer to
forwarding the packet based on the former table, and if not hit, then
lookup the latter table?
no.
From the context of the document, the answer seems not, or even on the
contrary?
In cases where a prefix advertisement is received in both a IPv4
Prefix Reachability TLV and an IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability
TLV, the IPv4 Prefix Reachability advertisement MUST be preferred
when installing entries in the forwarding plane.
above text is to handle an error case and only associate the prefix with
the single algo - e.g. algo 0.
thanks,
Peter
If so, what the value to deploy such flexible algorithm within the
network? From my POV, the reason that we want to deploy such mechanism
is that we want to differentiate the path(result of flex algorithm) of
some traffic from that(result of traditional least-cost algorithm) of
most other normal traffic.
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
*From:*lsr-boun...@ietf.org <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Acee
Lindem (acee)
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 2, 2020 5:13 AM
*To:* lsr <lsr@ietf.org>
*Subject:* [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms
(Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01
This IP Flex Algorithm draft generated quite a bit of discussion on use
cases and deployment prior to IETF 109 and there was generally support
for WG adoption. This begins a two week WG adoption call. Please
indicate your support or objection to WG adoption on this list prior to
12:00 AM UTC on December 16^th , 2020. Also, review comments are
certainly welcome.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
