Robert – Please read more carefully.
The draft introduces “a protocol(service) that will provide prompt notification of changes in node liveness…” What I am talking about here is NOT the information being sent by the service – but rather the service itself. Advertisement of the existence/location of that service is not within the purview of the IGP. That’s all I am saying… If you don’t like my use of the word “application” feel free to replace it with “service”. Whatever it is, it is not the IGP itself. The iGP hasn’t been extended to do anything – in fact that is one of the points of Tony’s proposal since he doesn’t think the IGP should be in the business of sending node liveness information. The service itself doesn’t even need to be running on a router at all. Les From: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:33 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Cc: Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-li-lsr-liveness-00.txt Hi Les, > Advertisement of the availability of an application is not within the scope > of an IGP Who proposes that ? AFAIK protocol Tony proposed indicates livness of an IGP node and specifically not any application on that node. Thx, R. On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 9:24 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Tony – Advertisement of the availability of an application is not within the scope of an IGP no matter what level of TLV you use to do so. Existing capability advertisements (e.g., flex-algo participation, SR ) are indicators of what the IGP implementation supports and/or is configured to support. Not the same thing as what you are proposing here. Les From: Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com<mailto:tony1ath...@gmail.com>> On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:12 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com<mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-li-lsr-liveness-00.txt Les, My precedent is the use Router Capability for advertising FlexAlgo definitions. This is a service being provided by the area and it seems equally relevant. Would you prefer a top level TLV? [LES:] Flex Algo is a routing calculation being performed by the IGPs who also advertise the algorithm specific attributes and algorithm specific forwarding identifiers. I don’t see what you are doing as analogous. Well, IMHO, I can understand the participation of the router in an algo as a capability. The definition of the algo seems to be somewhat orthogonal. But it’s there anyway. Similarly, the capability of node liveness is pretty clear. Yes, the service access point information is orthogonal. You didn’t respond: Would you prefer a top level TLV? That would the logical alternative. Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
