Hi Robert,
On 22/08/2021 20:17, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi Les,
Well I was not really proposing anything just making an observation. If
anything adding few more SABM bits for flex-algo, but frankly I can live
without them just fine.
In the light of Peter's response the more interesting is the invention
of UDABM field. It is not IETF business so how would anyone
accomplish multi vendor interoperability using it ?
setting a bit in UDABM can be done by any vendor. The usage of the bit
on the Rx side is completely in hands of the user and the consuming
application and not specified by IETF.
Question: Can I use UDABM to set bits in metrics for use with selective
flex-algo topologies ?
no, all flex-algo constraints are defined in the flex-algo draft.
If you want to exclude/include links in flex-algo constrained topology
you have affinities to do that.
Even if it is "not something that IETF is going to specify" - if we
define something in the protocol should it be clear what is the intended
use case ?
section 4, rfc8919:
"In addition to supporting the advertisement of link attributes used
by standardized applications, link attributes can also be advertised
for use by user-defined applications. Such applications are not
subject to standardization and are outside the scope of this
document.
thanks,
Peter
Many thx,
R.
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 4:48 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Robert –____
__ __
I have revised the subject since this is a different topic than the
original thread.____
__ __
If you want to discuss this further, please do so in the renamed
thread.____
Note that I am NOT encouraging you to continue this discussion – I
am in full agreement with Peter. I do not think what you propose is
desirable or needed.____
__ __
Les____
__ __
__ __
*From:* Robert Raszuk <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Sent:* Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:33 AM
*To:* Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ron Bonica <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-hegde-lsr-asla-any-app-00.txt____
__ __
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
