Robert, Acee,
On 16/09/2021 22:16, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Robert,
*From: *Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>
*Date: *Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:34 AM
*To: *Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>
*Cc: *Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@futurewei.com>, Tony Li
<tony...@tony.li>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, Bruno Decraene
<bruno.decra...@orange.com>, Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>, "Acee Lindem
(acee)" <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>
*Subject: *Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo
I believe flex-algo with additional constraints would be sufficient.
Aren't we putting too much operational complexity to the operators ?
The architecture supports it additional constraints. Nobody says they
have to be used. This is an interesting comment coming from the
originator of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05.txt
😉
How can anyone practically assure that such constraints will be
understood across a zoo of software versions and various implementations ?
IIRC, only routers supporting the FAD will participate in the flex
algorithm computation. I’ll defer to the authors for elaboration as I’m
busy with something else right now.
that's right, consistency check is one of the basic building blocks of
the flex-algo technology.
thanks,
Peter
Thanks,
Acee
For well known metrics it could be ok - but for new metrics and
selective use in FAD I am afraid this is going to be a pandora box.
Best,
R.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
