At the time the notion was that one could define addl TLVs to suit one's
routing design.. The use case I had and still do in mind is a BGP 3107 topology
to carry NHs across a set of stripped IGPs, this seems to deviate from that
model.
Thanks,
Jim Uttaro
-----Original Message-----
From: spring <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ondrej Zajicek
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 5:37 AM
To: 徐小虎(义先) <[email protected]>
Cc: idr <[email protected]>; SPRING WG List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [spring] [Idr] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02.txt
Hi
My main objection to the draft is it uses separate SAFI to signal that
latency based routing is used. I don't think that is a good idea. Latency
based routing is a general concept, which makes sense to use with several
existing SAFIs (at least 1, 4 and 128). Whether or not announce and
use NETWORK_LATENCY TLV should be an independent session property, like
using AIGP TLV or e.g. ADD-PATH extension.
This is an issue that was underspecified in RFC 7311, just kept by
configuration of both sides. Perhaps we need a new capability to specify
which AIGP TLVs (if any) are supposed to be used on the session, so it
can be negotiated automatically like ADD-PATH.
--
Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: [email protected])
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_spring&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=nTDIog7BhaHv2SH9PKmzhZAYEnJisvMqEfHsCyZoQ2E&s=fzT3zdTC_W3QtjsM2DSzNWzm3QE36Ug8Vc6zI1Mjwbo&e=
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
