Hi Mengxiao,
please see inline:
On 25/03/2022 07:35, Chenmengxiao wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thank you for the comments.
Time for the presentation is very limited. Glad to receive your comments
here.
I agree that flex-algo is much easier to deploy and manage than MT,
which make it a popular tool now.
But I think using algorithm-specific link metric will not cause the loss
of this property.
For example, flex-algo 128 and flex-algo 129 need to use different
metrics of the same metric-type for the same link.
Solution A: Use algorithm-based metric for algorithm 128 and algorithm 129
Solution B: Use metric-type-based metric for metric-type 128 and
metric-type 129 (according to Shraddha's suggestion,
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con)
Both in the two solutions, extra link metric tlvs need to be advertised,
and they are stored locally, no matter algorithm-based or metric-type-based.
yes, but for B, any other algorithm may share the metric used for algo
128 or 129. That is not possible with A.
You may argue that in your case you only have two algos, so the result
ts similar. Yes, but from the architecture perspective there is a
difference. Not to mention that for A we would need to extend the FAD.
During path computation, the difference is that, solution A needs to
check if there is algorithm-based metric for the link. If yes,
algorithm-based metric is preferred. If no, common metric is used.
IMHO, even if the algorithm-specific link metric is used, flex-algo is
still light weight, compared with MT.
not really, because it advertise algo specific metric that can not be
used by any other algo, which is similar to topology specific metric in MT.
I would encourage you to consider option B as a solution for your problem.
thanks,
Peter
Thanks,
Mengxiao Chen
-----Original Message-----
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 11:09 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] draft-lin-lsr-flex-algo-metric-00
Hi,
as I was unable to make my comments during the presentation, let me put
them here:
When we started with the flex-algo work, there has been a lengthy
discussion on why not to use the multi-topology (MT) instead. We always
wanted flex-algo to be light weight and as a result easy to deploy and
manage. I believe that was one of the reasons why flex-algo has been
successfully deployed. We do not want to loose that very property of the
flex-algo architecture.
What you are proposing is what MT was invented for and we do not want
flex-algo to become a new version of MT.
You have two ways to solve your problem:
a) use MT
b) if you want to solve your problem with flex-algo, please use what
already exists in flex-algo. Please look at
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con as others have pointed out.
thanks,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出
的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄
露、复制、
或散发）本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人
并删除本
邮件！
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
New H3C, which is
intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above.
Any use of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to,
total or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the
intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender
by phone or email immediately and delete it!
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
