Hi Robert, On 22/08/2021 15:33, Robert Raszuk wrote:
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 ?
1. because flex-algo draft (which has been last called by the LSR WG already) defines flex-algo as a single application from the ASLA perspective.
2. I do not see why one would want to make application out of each constrained topology.
Is there any real definition of "IGP application" LSR WG has converged and agreed upon ?
no, but there is a document that defines flex-algo as a single application.
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.
usage of bits in UDABM is not specified. It's user defined and not standardized by IETF
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 ?
no, because the UDABM bits is not something that IETF is going to specify. thanks, Peter
Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
