Linda – I believe the most valuable feedback you received during your presentation at IETF 112 is that using IGPs likely will not meet the deployment requirements. In particular, persistence of a given client session with a given application server is likely a requirement which will not be achieved using an IGP based solution. Also, the modification of IGP metrics will likely introduce unwanted oscillation in traffic flows.
I suggest you start with a clean slate – focus on defining what all the requirements are without regard to what mechanism/protocol might be used – and then think about defining a solution which meets these requirements. I think you will end up NOT using routing protocols at all. On a more mundane note, the section describing the new IS-IS advertisement (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-03#section-6 ) is – to put it bluntly – a mess! 😊 TLVs 128 and 130 are legacy TLVs which don’t support sub-TLVs – they should not be mentioned at all. And the encoding diagram shows a “prefix” being advertised in the new sub-TLV when it should not. The prefix has already been advertised in the parent TLV. Les From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 11:29 AM To: lsr@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] Seeking feedback to the revised draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute LSR experts, We have revised the draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute to address the comments and feedback from IETF 112. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute/ In a nutshell, the proposed solution * advertises the “Site-Cost” via IP prefix reachability TLV associated with the (anycast) prefix The Site-Cost is the aggregated cost associated with an Edge Compute (EC) server (i.e., ANYCAST prefix), computed based on the IP layer related metrics for the prefix, such as Load Measurement, the Capacity Index, the Preference Index, and other constraints by a consistent algorithm across all egress routers to which the EC servers are attached. * Uses a Flag in the Flexible Algorithm TLV to indicate that “site-cost” needs to be included for the constrained SPF to reach the Prefix Any feedbacks? Or suggestions? Thank you very much Linda
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
