Thanks Ron, indeed! Autocorrect works in mysterious ways ;-) Regards, Jeff
> On Oct 11, 2020, at 09:41, Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> wrote: > > Jeff, > > I think that you mean the scope is different..... > > Ron > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 3:14 PM > To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> > Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com>; Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com>; > Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@futurewei.com>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com>; > lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Jie, > > The scoop is different, for SR data plane entry uniqueness is in context of > SR domain (SID = value + context), while for IP it is global to the routing > domain, FIB entry is a destination, nothing more. > > Regards, > Jeff > >> On Oct 10, 2020, at 05:47, Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Jimmie, >> >> Inline..... >> >> Ron >> >> >> Juniper Business Use Only >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com> >> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 11:06 PM >> To: Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com>; Ron Bonica >> <rbon...@juniper.net>; Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@futurewei.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 >> >> [External Email. Be cautious of content] >> >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> Thanks for your reply. It aligns with my understanding of FAD, which is just >> a set of constraints for path computation. Thus one Flex-Algo ID could be >> used with multiple different data planes. Is this understanding correct? >> >> [RB] I never thought about this. Is there a use-case? I think that it will >> work, but I would have to try it before saying for sure. >> >> If so, my question is about the scenario below: >> >> A group of nodes in a network support FA-128, a sub-group of them bind >> FA-128 to SR SIDs, another sub-group of them bind FA-128 to IP address. When >> one node compute an SR path to a destination, can it compute the path to >> only pass the nodes which bind FA-128 to SR SIDs, and avoid the nodes which >> bind FA-128 to IP address? >> >> [RB] I don't think so. However, you could achieve the same outcome using >> link colors. >> >> If so, how could this node know the binding of FA to different data planes >> on other nodes? >> >> Best regards, >> Jie >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak >>> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 11:58 PM >>> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com>; Ron Bonica >>> <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Yingzhen Qu >>> <yingzhen...@futurewei.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 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.outl >>>>> oo >>>>> k.com/ >>>>> ?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Flsr&data >>>>> = >>> 0 >>>>> 2 >>>>> >>> *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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l >>>>> sr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TeHgIKM4lUZhkYnt_eFt3SshGJtln8PTqhCuZtODomUQWC_H >>>>> z218CE8S8XzlIxAA$ >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lsr mailing list >>> Lsr@ietf.org >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >>> _ >>> _;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TeHgIKM4lUZhkYnt_eFt3SshGJtln8PTqhCuZtODomUQWC_Hz218C >>> E >>> 8S8XzlIxAA$ _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
