Hi Robert, From: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Date: Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:34 AM To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@futurewei.com>, Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decra...@orange.com>, Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo
I believe flex-algo with additional constraints would be sufficient. Aren't we putting too much operational complexity to the operators ? The architecture supports it additional constraints. Nobody says they have to be used. This is an interesting comment coming from the originator of https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05.txt 😉 How can anyone practically assure that such constraints will be understood across a zoo of software versions and various implementations ? IIRC, only routers supporting the FAD will participate in the flex algorithm computation. I’ll defer to the authors for elaboration as I’m busy with something else right now. Thanks, Acee For well known metrics it could be ok - but for new metrics and selective use in FAD I am afraid this is going to be a pandora box. Best, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
