Hi Aijun, How’s my response triggered yours? Where do you see my talking about static vs dynamic TE? It you are looking for a philosophical angle - perhaps we could talk about centralized vs distributed TE and complexity of each one.
Regards, Jeff > On Dec 3, 2020, at 19:13, Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> wrote: > > > Hi, Jeff: > > Static TE can’t meet the requirement of real world. > If the LFA mechanism can only be achieved within each IP-FLEX algorithm, is > it just another static resource allocation and prefix assignment method? > > > Best Regards > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > > From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura > Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 9:18 AM > To: Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> > Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms > (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01 > > Anything else than IGP metric based SPT is considered TE. Looking > holistically - topology virtualization (or similar) could have been a better > name. > > Cheers, > Jeff > On Dec 3, 2020, 4:25 PM -0800, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>, wrote: > > 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 <tony1ath...@gmail.com> 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 > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
