Defining new algorithm also requires the all the node upgrades. Your argument seems not reasonable.
Aijun Wang China Telecom > On May 4, 2022, at 11:49, Parag Kaneriya <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mixing data plan using same TLV may lead to forwarding issue. if you do so > it is required to upgrade all the node in the network which is practically > not possible. Hence Different TVL for IP flex algo required. > > Regards > Parag > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Psenak <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 1:35 PM > To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]>; Peter Psenak > <[email protected]> > Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04 > - "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Aijun, > >> On 03/05/2022 09:59, Aijun Wang wrote: >> Hi, Peter: >> The definition of FAPM for IS-IS and OSPF doesn’t prevent from it is used >> for the intra-area prefixes. >> If we advertise the different loopback addresses via the FAPM, associate >> them to different Flex-Algo and related metrics, and does not allocate the >> MPLS SID, we can achieve the IP-Flex effect then. > > as I said, we can not mix metrics for different data-planes. > >> So, what’s the additional value of the IP-Flexalgo draft then? > > please read the draft. It defines the flex-algo for IP data plane. > > thanks, > Peter > > > >> >> Aijun Wang >> China Telecom >> >>>> On May 3, 2022, at 14:46, Peter Psenak >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Aijun, >>> >>>> On 03/05/2022 00:47, Aijun Wang wrote: >>>> Hi, Acee: >>>> The questions raised at >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/RlHphXCwxMbgGvcBV_m24xiDzS0/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!G17D9bO4s42aBMCFpgMcDLEOsyVydCNbfKW5UAkmHbgLdgKiYWY1ryBShvdDHk53sdkcOyP_dXaI7uY$ >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/RlHphXCwxMbgGvcBV_m24xiDzS0/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!G17D9bO4s42aBMCFpgMcDLEOsyVydCNbfKW5UAkmHbgLdgKiYWY1ryBShvdDHk53sdkcOyP_dXaI7uY$ >>>> > has not been answered. >>> >>> IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV” and “OSPF Flexible >>> Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV” are defined for advertisement of algorithm >>> specific metric for inter-area inter-AS prefixes for SR-MPLS data-plane. >>> >>> SR MPLS and IP are independent data-planes used for flex-algo. We can not >>> mix their metric. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Peter >>> >>>> Aijun Wang >>>> China Telecom >>>>>> On May 2, 2022, at 23:00, Acee Lindem (acee) >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The WG last call has completed. We will submit an updated version of the >>>>> document for publication with the terminology changes based on the >>>>> discussion amongst the authors, Ketan, Robert, Gyan, and others. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Acee >>>>> >>>>> *From: *Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> *Date: *Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:07 PM >>>>> *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>> *Cc: *"[email protected]" >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> *Subject: *[Lsr] Working Group Last Call for >>>>> draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04 - "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) >>>>> In IP Networks" >>>>> >>>>> This begins a WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04. The draft >>>>> had a lot of support and discussion initially and has been stable for >>>>> some time. Please review and send your comments, support, or objection to >>>>> this list before 12 AM UTC on April 22^nd , 2022. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Acee >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lsr mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!G17D9bO4s42aBMCFpgMcDLEOsyVydCNbfKW5UAkmHbgLdgKiYWY1ryBShvdDHk53sdkcOyP_BMwKUC4$ >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
