Robert, > What harm would it make if someone writes a draft, defines a useful flex algo > on which (the usefulness the LSR WG agrees) say using max propagation delay > across hops as as a metric and allocates IANA type 135 for it ?
I’m inferring that you are suggesting that we take a code point from the IANA IGP Algorithm Types registry. There are only 256 of those, so they are quite precious. 135 has already been allocated to FlexAlgo for local use. Values 2-127 are currently unassigned. The exact same semantics could be achieved by using a local algorithm value and then specifying the Min Unidirectional Link Delay as the Metric Type in the FlexAlgo Definition. > That is what I have a hard time to understand the objections for. You burn a precious code point and have made the problem worse. Now, you need to ensure that not only do all of your implementations support min delay, but now they also must know about the statically defined code point. That lowers interoperability, not improves it. And once we head down this slippery slope, everyone and their uncle will ask for a code point for their favorite particular combinations of FAD parameters. 125 values will not go very far in encoding a rich constraint space. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
