Shraddha, Let's zoom on flex-algo for now ...
There are two types of FAD: Local Flexible Algorithm Definition - Flexible Algorithm Definition defined locally on the node. Remote Flexible Algorithm Definition - Flexible Algorithm Definition received from other nodes via IGP flooding. If you think that you can use local FAD definition all over the network to add or remove specific metrics from consideration at each node - then the point as already indicated in the email to Ron is that this is extremely fragile and will make lot's of network meltdowns. This is not how IGPs should work. The real operational consistency comes with Remote FAD signaled by IGP flooding. I do not see how you can do the latter without ASLA. Thx, R. On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 3:22 PM Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net> wrote: > Robert, > > > > > Can anyone explain how do I map generic metric to selected network > applications I am to run in the network ? > > > > Which application uses which metric type is defined by the application. > > For example in flex-algo FAD defines which metric-type its going to use. > > In SR-TE, the constraint list specifies which metric-type it is going to > use. > > > > > > > > Rgds > > Shraddha > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> > *Sent:* Friday, July 30, 2021 6:20 PM > *To:* Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) < > gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com> > *Cc:* Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com>; Shraddha Hegde < > shrad...@juniper.net>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Tony > Li <tony...@tony.li>; lsr@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Generic metric: application-specific vs > application-independent > > > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > Hey Gunter, > > > > > It doesn’t make sense to have Application specific values if a > particular metric is obtained only dynamically, > > > > It sure does. > > > > Please notice what ASLA RFCs say up front in the abstract. ASLA is useful > for: > > > > A) application- specific values for a given attribute > > > > AND > > > > B) indication of which applications are using the advertised value for a > given link. > > > > > > It does not matter if the value is same or different ... what matters is > automated and consistent indication which of my applications given new > metric applies to. > > > > I already mentioned this to Ron here: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/OgGLI8yezUDWU-EZePoIj6y6ENk/ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/OgGLI8yezUDWU-EZePoIj6y6ENk/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Tny8sU7cmjqLAbDVnliN7lck7J4tCBAHr10i3CW2G9oviUWo8b2RTJxCXc0gvWOz$> > > > > Can anyone explain how do I map generic metric to selected network > applications I am to run in the network ? > > > > Thx, > Robert. > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 11:05 AM Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) > <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com> wrote: > > A little late in the discussion... (PTO events do happen) > > a quick opinion on the below discussion on whether Generic metric sub-tlv > should be encoded on a ASLA or not. > For me, it depends on how the metric for the corresponding metric-type is > obtained and if it can be configured (static). > It doesn’t make sense to have Application specific values if a particular > metric is obtained only dynamically, for eg, dynamically measured delay is > going to be same for all applications. > On the contrary, te-metric can be configured, and we can in principle > configure different values for different applications. > > My opinion is that if any of the metric-types in the Generic metric > sub-tlv can be configured, it should be inside the ASLA. > > G/ > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
