Peter and Tony, 

Thank you very much for the explanation.

Is it necessary to register with IANA on individual Flex-Algo value (a value 
between 128-255)?
Say there are 5 properties associated with the Stub link, one Flex algo uses 
weighted values of 4 properties, another Flex Algo uses Weighted values of 5 
properties. Can operator use any value they want? As long as the value is 
consistent among all nodes in one IGP domain? 

How is Calc-Type used, especially combined with Flex-Algo? 

Does the Flex-Algo type already indicate how  Metric are to be included in the 
algorithm? Why need to explicit indicate the "Metric-Type" in the FAD Sub-TLV? 

 
Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak <[email protected]> 
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 1:00 PM
To: Tony Li <[email protected]>; Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Hi Linda, Tony,


On 09/09/2021 19:37, Tony Li wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Linda,
> 
> Algorithm types 128-255 are intended to be used with the constraints 
> that are advertised inside of a FlexAlgo definition.
> 
> I think what you're proposing is not captured there, so you would need 
> to have a defined algorithm from 2-127.

eventually, the usage of the "weighted value of a Stub Link property" 
can be added to the FAD and be used with flex-algo.

thanks,
Peter


> 
> Tony
> 
> 
>> On Sep 9, 2021, at 9:51 AM, Linda Dunbar <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-17 currently has registered Algorithm Types
>> 128-255 with IANA.
>> If we need to add a new Algorithm Type, e.g. using a weighted value 
>> of a Stub Link property in calculating the shortest path, do we need 
>> to use one of the value within 128-255 or need to ask IANA to assign 
>> one of the values within 2-127 (currently shown unassigned on IANA page)?
>>
>> Linda Dunbar
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lsr <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> On 
>> Behalf Of Peter Psenak
>> Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 7:52 AM 
>> To:[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>;[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo
>>
>> Hi Bruno,
>>
>> On 09/09/2021 14:43, [email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi authors, all,
>>>
>>> I have a question related to the two-way connectivity check 
>>> performed on each link during the FlexAlgo SPF.
>>
>> flex-algo is defined as set of:
>>
>> (a) calculation-type
>> (b) metric-type,
>> (c) a set of constraints
>>
>> Two way connectivity check for any link in the MT topology is 
>> orthogonal to flex-algo and is done once only and used for all algorithms.
>>
>> Flex-algo calculation using (a), (b), and (c) is done on top of MT 
>> topology using only links for which the 2WCC has already been performed.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Is this point documented in the document? I could not find it so far.
>>> If not, what is the (reverse connectivity) check that need to be 
>>> performed on the reverse link?
>>
>>
>> none.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>>
>>> A priori I could see multiple options:
>>> a) link exist
>>> b) link exist with a standard IGP metric  (seem the option defined 
>>> in the ISO spec §7.2.8.2)
>>> c) link exist with the FlexAlgo metric used by FlexAlgo
>>> d) link exist with the FlexAlgo metric used by FlexAlgo and link 
>>> complies to FlexAlgo constraints.
>>>
>>> I think we'll agree that this point requires uniformity across nodes 
>>> hence standardization.
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't have significant preference, but the algo 
>>> defined in §13 "Calculation of Flexible Algorithm Paths" could be 
>>> read as defining option "d" (as links not following the constraints 
>>> are "pruned from the computation") but I'm not sure that this is 
>>> intended for the two-way connectivity check.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Regards,
>>> --Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________________
>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>
>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
>>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre 
>>> diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu 
>>> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le 
>>> detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques 
>>> etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite 
>>> si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>
>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
>>> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not 
>>> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender 
>>> and delete this message and its attachments.
>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that 
>>> have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lsr mailing list
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
>>> w.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&amp;data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunba
>>> r%40futurewei.com%7Cca978044a7ba440ec77108d973bba407%7C0fee8ff2a3b24
>>> 0189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637668072069634742%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZ
>>> sb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0
>>> %3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=tTyS4ZyXQiylM%2B5e%2BM6qytL0P3wBTMDw%2FVJnLjqz2
>>> K0%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
>> .ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&amp;data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%
>> 40futurewei.com%7Cca978044a7ba440ec77108d973bba407%7C0fee8ff2a3b24018
>> 9c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637668072069634742%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d
>> 8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7
>> C1000&amp;sdata=tTyS4ZyXQiylM%2B5e%2BM6qytL0P3wBTMDw%2FVJnLjqz2K0%3D&
>> amp;reserved=0
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
>> .ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&amp;data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%
>> 40futurewei.com%7Cca978044a7ba440ec77108d973bba407%7C0fee8ff2a3b24018
>> 9c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637668072069634742%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d
>> 8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7
>> C1000&amp;sdata=tTyS4ZyXQiylM%2B5e%2BM6qytL0P3wBTMDw%2FVJnLjqz2K0%3D&
>> amp;reserved=0
> 

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to