Hi Tony, On 20/11/17 22:11 , Tony Przygienda wrote:
So, it seems that there will be a new draft with 242 covering all algorithms (i.e. no MT specific algo advertisement anymore).
there is no MT specific algo advertisement in the current flex-algo draft. MTs are independent to flex-algos.
Then I thought each MT advertises which Flex it supports. Is the assumption that you can run multiple algorithms per MT? How would you otherwise have a two-algorithms-to-same-prefix problem? Is there some kind of conceptual model of FlexAlgo, i.e. how many of what associated with how many of the other (MT to algo, algo to protocol instance etc) ...
There is many to many relationship between MT and Flex-Algo. Single MT can use many Flex-Algos and single Flex-Algo can be used on many MTs.
thanks, Peter
-- tony On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Shraddha, Peter, et al, The comment on the draft I had was that the conflict case where two ISIS routers advertise the same multi-homed prefix with a different algorithm needs to be covered. I wouldn’t try and optimize for this and would just do whatever is simplest but avoids loops (e.g., log the situation and prefer the path computed with the lowest numbered algorithm). Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg> _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
_______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
