Hey Peter, > 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. > > no, flex-algo is a single application, it's not a mechanism to create > new applications. The fact that you can create many constraints > topologies using flex-algo, does not mean these should be considered as > different apps. You have to put and keep clear borders at clear places. > We have them defined by ASLA and by base flex-algo draft. >
Why each constrained topology can not be intuitively called a different network application ? Is there any real definition of "IGP application" LSR WG has converged and agreed upon ? See your take that it is implicitly defined in flex-algo draft by setting one bit to it in SABM is IMO pretty weak. Maybe it would hold if you forbid to use UDABM for flex-algo metrics, but I do not see such restriction anywhere in flex-algo draft nor in ASLA drafts. That means that implementation may allow it. So flex algo is a single app if we use SABM, but it can be multiple apps if we use UDABM ? Don't you think this is a bit loose definition ? Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
