-----Original Message-----
From: Lsr [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 11:58 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]>; Ron Bonica
<[email protected]>; Yingzhen Qu
<[email protected]>; Gyan Mishra <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>
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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 4:34 AM
To: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; Peter Psenak
<[email protected]>; Gyan Mishra <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2020 2:08 PM
To: Peter Psenak <[email protected]>; Gyan Mishra
<[email protected]>; Ron Bonica <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>
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" <[email protected]> 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"
<[email protected] on behalf of
[email protected]>
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
> [email protected]
>
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
[email protected]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l
sr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TeHgIKM4lUZhkYnt_eFt3SshGJtln8PTqhCuZtODomUQWC_H
z218CE8S8XzlIxAA$
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr_
_;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TeHgIKM4lUZhkYnt_eFt3SshGJtln8PTqhCuZtODomUQWC_Hz218CE
8S8XzlIxAA$
