Hi Ron,
So perhaps, generic metric is not a legacy advertisement as strictly defined.
However, we don't want to go down the path of treating new attributes in the
same manner as legacy attributes. It seems the discussion is progressing and
hopefully we will have a resolution.
Thanks,
Acee
On 7/22/21, 1:28 PM, "Ron Bonica" <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
Acee,
I don't think that draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con violates RFC 8919.
Section 6.1 of RFC 8919 says:
" New applications that future documents define to make use of the
advertisements defined in this document MUST NOT make use of legacy
advertisements. This simplifies deployment of new applications by
eliminating the need to support multiple ways to advertise attributes
for the new applications."
Section 3 of RFC 8919 defines legacy advertisements. The definition of
legacy
advertisements does not include new attributes such as
generic metric. Therefore draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con does not
violate RFC 8919
Relevant text from Section 3 of RFC 8919 is included below for convenience.
Ron
RFC 8919, Section 3
---------------------------
3. Legacy Advertisements
Existing advertisements used in support of RSVP-TE include sub-TLVs
for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 and TLVs for Shared Risk Link
Group (SRLG) advertisement.
Sub-TLV values are defined in the "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141,
222, and 223" registry.
TLVs are defined in the "TLV Codepoints Registry".
3.1. Legacy Sub-TLVs
+======+====================================+
| Type | Description |
+======+====================================+
| 3 | Administrative group (color) |
+------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | Maximum link bandwidth |
+------+------------------------------------+
| 10 | Maximum reservable link bandwidth |
+------+------------------------------------+
| 11 | Unreserved bandwidth |
+------+------------------------------------+
| 14 | Extended Administrative Group |
+------+------------------------------------+
| 18 | TE Default Metric |
+------+------------------------------------+
| 33 | Unidirectional Link Delay |
+------+------------------------------------+
| 34 | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay |
+------+------------------------------------+
| 35 | Unidirectional Delay Variation |
+------+------------------------------------+
| 36 | Unidirectional Link Loss |
+------+------------------------------------+
| 37 | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth |
+------+------------------------------------+
| 38 | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth |
+------+------------------------------------+
| 39 | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth |
+------+------------------------------------+
Table 1: Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25,
141, 222, and 223
Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 1:21 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Shraddha
Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; gregory.mir...@ztetx.com;
ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con.auth...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-01.txt
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Speaking as WG member:
I agree with Les. The Generic Metric MUST be advertised as an ASLA for
usage in Flex Algorithm. Additionally, it may be advertised as a sub-TLV in
IS-IS link TLVs. However, the latter encoding really shouldn't be used for new
applications (at least that is my reading of RFC 8919).
For OSPF, I'd certainly hope one wouldn't originate additional LSAs when an
ASLA can support the legacy applications with the ASLA mask.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
