Hi Jimmy,
On 09/10/2020 04:59, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
Hi Ron,
Thanks for explaining the difference between IP Flex-Algo and SR Flex-algo. As
you said, the major difference is the data plane.
If my understanding is correct, for one Flex-Algo to be used correctly, the set
of nodes need to apply consistent constraints in computation, and bind the FAD
to the same data plane.
Is it possible that different nodes may use the same Flex-Algo with different
data plane, e.g. some with SR-MPLS, some with SRv6, and some with pure IP etc.,
or each Flex-Algo is always associated with only one data plane? In the former
case, should the flex-algo definition also indicate the data plane(s) to be
used with the flex-algo?
let me respond to this query, as this is not specific to Ron's draft.
FAD is data plane agnostic and is used by all of them.
thanks,
Peter
Best regards,
Jie
-----Original Message-----
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 4:34 AM
To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@futurewei.com>; Peter Psenak
<ppse...@cisco.com>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt
Hi Yingzhen,
IP Flexible Algorithms are like SR Flexible Algorithms in the following
respects:
- Links have IGP metrics, TE metrics, delay metrics and administrative colors
- FADs define Flexible Algorithms
More specifically, the FAD:
- Indicates which metric type the Flexible Algorithm uses
- Specifies constraints in terms of link colors that are included or excluded
from
the Flexible Algorithm.
The significant difference between IP Flexible Algorithms and SR Flexible
Algorithms is:
- SR Flexible Algorithms bind FADs to prefix SIDs or SRv6 locators
- IP Flexible Algorithms bind FADs to IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.
So, IP Flexible Algorithms can be deployed in any IP network, even in the
absence of SR.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@futurewei.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2020 2:08 PM
To: Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com>; Gyan Mishra
<hayabusa...@gmail.com>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Peter,
Using flex-algo, a SRv6 locator can be associated with a single algo, which
means an IPv6 or IPv4 address can also be associated with a single algo. So my
understanding is Ron's proposal is making the configuration of flex-algo easier?
Instead of using the exclude or include list you can configure a loopback
address to a flex-algo directly?
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On 10/3/20, 2:47 AM, "Peter Psenak" <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi Yingzhen,
On 02/10/2020 22:15, Yingzhen Qu wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> My understanding of flex-algo is that for traffic destined to a prefix
on a
particular algo, it can only be routed on routers belong to that algo, which
also
means only routers in that algo calculates how to reach that prefix and install
it into the routing table. It seems to me that using flex-algo (section 12 of
the
draft) it's possible to have a loopback address associated with only one algo,
please correct me if I'm missing or misunderstood something.
you are right. That is exactly what is being done for flex-algo with
SRv6 - locator is associated with a single algo only. The proposal uses
the same concept.
thanks,
Peter
>
> Thanks,
> Yingzhen
>
> On 10/2/20, 9:43 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak"
<lsr-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>
wrote:
>
> Gyan,
>
> On 02/10/2020 18:30, Gyan Mishra wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > With SRv6 and IP based flex algo a generic question as it applies
to
> > both. Is it possible to have within a single IGP domain different
sets
> > of nodes or segments of the network running different
algorithms.
>
> absolutely.
>
> > From
> > both drafts it sounds like all nodes have to agree on same
algorithm
> > similar to concept of metric and reference bandwidth all have to
have
> > the same style metric and play to the same sheet of music.
>
> all participating nodes need to agree on the definition of the
flex-algo
> and advertise the participation. That's it.
>
> > If there was
> > a way to use multiple algorithms simultaneously based on SFC
or services
> > and instantiation of specific algorithm based on service to be
> > rendered. Doing so without causing a routing loop or sub
optimal
> > routing.
>
> you can certainly use multiple algorithms simultaneously and use
algo
> specific paths to forward specific traffic over it. How that is done
> from the forwarding perspective depends in which forwarding
plane you
> use. Flex-algo control plane is independent of the forwarding
plane.
>
>
> >I thought with flex algo that there exists a feature that on
> > each hop there is a way to specify which algo to use hop by hop
similar
> > to a hop by hop policy based routing.
>
> no, there is no hop-by-hop classification, that is problematic and
does
> not scale for high speeds. Classification is done at the ingress
only.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/
?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Flsr&data=02
*7C01*7Cyingzhen.qu*40futurewei.com*7Cfe03124c6e414e067c2008d86781
6541*7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc*7C1*7C0*7C63737315273986
5126&sdata=WI48cEAan*2FOkDPmVXGurEAjPItNGF9p9PDQIlD1ip0g*3D
&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X1fRln9MjimeJcR
EUEIydr-8IIbtNonXMs83eoXvRww6xkaQfVUdNh0kK452GP-G$
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
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
