Les, 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. **😊* >
Nope. I meant to say that having support for flex-algo and FAD I can think of new applications without need to write a new router's code (assuming existing code is flexible enough :). After all, aren't we in the era of network programming ? > *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.* > See above. And I will perhaps say it again that to me flex-algo is more of a mechanism to build new applications then NEW APPLICATION itself. That is why if we would adhere well to ASLA architecture there should be many more bits for it then one. Thx, R. >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
