Robert - From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2021 2:41 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> Cc: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-hegde-lsr-asla-any-app-00.txt
But the entire point of A-bit is that you are doing this exercise to make sure your routers understand A-bit only one time. [LES:] This does not mean that you can introduce support for a new application (call it “bit N”) w/o upgrading your routers simply because you already have A-bit support. I hope that is obvious. 😊 I beg to differ. [LES:] Your statement suggests (and I am certain you do not mean to do so) that if only we had the foresight to define the A-bit in RFC 8919/8920 that we could have introduced support for Flex-Algo without writing any new code at all. 😊 We are talking here about a NEW APPLICATION. The only existing example we have today (post RFC 8919/8920) is Flex-Algo – but given time I expect some other application will come along. What that will be and what kinds of calculations/attributes it might require is something we do not currently know. The syntax used to advertise link attributes does not magically allow new applications to be supported without adding new code to the nodes. Les In my books you can create new interesting topologies simply by selecting existing existing metrics on subset of links. And still say run Dijkstra on it. In your view - new application MUST use new metric which is something I fundamentally disagree with. My original point was simply that the statement about “backwards compatibility” regarding A-bit isn’t accurate. Good that we now agree on that. That is correct IMO. Thx, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
