-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2020 3:14 AM
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
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_Hz2
18C
E
8S8XzlIxAA$
