Hi Peter,
Thanks very much for your reply, I get it.
原始邮件
发件人：PeterPsenak <ppse...@cisco.com>
收件人：彭少富10053815;
抄送人：lsr@ietf.org <lsr@ietf.org>;
日 期 ：2020年03月02日 17:14
主 题 ：Re: Questions about draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-06
Hi Peng,
On 29/02/2020 07:41, peng.sha...@zte.com.cn wrote:
>
> Hi Peter
>
>
> Please see the difference rules of TE metric in Flex-algo draft and RFC5305.
>
> For the link without TE metric attribute, in Flex-algo draft it will be
> excluded from FA plane that configured TE metric type, but in RFC5305
> the IGP metric of the link can be as replacement.
>
> Please see if they can be consistent ?
no, we do not want to fallback from one metric to other in case of
flex-algo. RFC5305 is irrelevant in this case, as flex-algo is a
completely different application.
thanks,
Peter
>
>
> Flex-algo draft:
>
> section 12. Calculation of Flexible Algorithm Paths
>
> Rule-5:
>
> 5. If the Flex-Algorithm definition uses other than IGP metric
>
> (Section 5), and such metric is not advertised for the particular
>
> link in a topology for which the computation is done, such link
>
> MUST be pruned from the computation. A metric of value 0 MUST NOT
>
> be assumed in such case.
>
>
>
> RFC5305:
>
> section 3.7. Sub-TLV 18: Traffic Engineering Default Metric
>
> This sub-TLV is optional. This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
>
> each extended IS reachability TLV. If a link is advertised without
>
> this sub-TLV, traffic engineering SPF calculations MUST use the
>
> normal default metric of this link, which is advertised in the fixed
>
> part of the extended IS reachability TLV.
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
