Hi Tony, The moment I hit "Send" I knew that this response may be coming as it really depends what is one's definition of TE.
If indeed IGP TE is anything more then SPF - then sure we can call it a TE feature. However, while a very useful and really cool proposal, my point is to make sure this is not oversold - that's all. Best, R. On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:13 AM Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > > However I really do not think that what Flexible Algorithm offers can be > compared or even called as Traffic Engineering (MPLS or SR). > > > > Sure Flex Algo can accomplish in a very elegant way with little cost > multi topology routing but this is not full TE. It can also direct traffic > based on static or dynamic network preferences (link colors, rtt drops etc > ... ), but again it is not taking into account load of the entire network > and IMHO has no way of accomplish TE level traffic distribution. > > > > Just to make sure the message here is proper. > > > It’s absolutely true that FlexAlgo (IP or SR) has limitations. There’s no > bandwidth reservation. There’s no dynamic load balancing. No, it’s not a > drop in replacement for RSVP. No, it does not supplant SR-TE and a good > controller. Etc., etc., etc…. > > However I don’t feel that it’s fair to say that FlexAlgo can’t be called > Traffic Engineering. After all TE is a very broad topic. Everything that > we’ve done that’s more sophisticated than simple SPF falls in the area of > Traffic Engineering. Link coloring and SRLG alone clearly fall into that > bucket. > > I’ll grant you that it may not have the right TE features for your > application, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not sufficient for some. > Please don’t mislead people by saying that it’s not Traffic Engineering. > > Regards, > Tony > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
