Hi Robert, From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:34 AM To: Peter Psenak <[email protected]> Cc: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>, Tony Li <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Bruno Decraene <[email protected]>, Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
