Hi Bruno,

please see inline:

On 30/06/2020 16:53, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Hi all,

I can live with the current text, but I'm just raising the point for discussion 
(better safe than sorry).

"16.1.1.  IGP Algorithm Types Registry

    This document makes the following registrations in the "IGP Algorithm 
Types" registry:

       Type: 128-255.

       Description: Flexible Algorithms.
"
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-07#section-16.1.1

This is essentially burning half of the registry for flex-algo. Indeed, any 
network operator could use any value, e.g. 222, hence the IETF could never 
define a different usage for this value without creating interop issues for the 
network operator.

what is the real problem? Is the space 2-127 that is free not sufficient for other standardized algorithms that may come?


We could discuss whether we really need 127 values for this. (i.e. a network 
operator requiring 127 flex algo, typically multiplying its IGP FIB entries by 
127...).

above is not necessarily true and more importantly completely irrelevant to the number of algos we reserve for FA.


We could also discuss whether this range could be change to the IANA well-known 
"Private Use" [1]. This would allow for alternative private usages in the 
future (e.g. Flexible Alorithms v2).
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-4.1

It seems to me that the latter would equally work for flex algo, but would 
provide more flexibility :-) for the future.

I don't think so. We need an allocated range of algos for FA for compatibility.


thanks,
Peter

Regards,
--Bruno

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr



_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to