Robert, > If FlexAlgo is adopted, then we should expect that it will get stressed and > that further conditions will be added to a FAD. The problem will only become > worse the more success that FlexAlgo has. It sounds to me like you want > FlexAlgo to fail, which seems strange. > > Well I have a bit of a different view on this one. > > If we keep networks simple (which is what IMHO we should do) I don't see that > we are any close to exceeding FAD limits as per today's encoding. > > Now if on the other hand we load tons of application awareness into the > network and flatten all of this to the IGP transport layer - sure you are > right. That limit and what's worse today's REs CPU and RAM capacity will be > off limits. But do we really want this ? Would you call this a FlexAlgo > success ? > > Isn't it better to keep all of the smartness as the overlay ? After all, > wherever you look around everything is transported encapsulated already.
I believe that I am the loudest voice asking people to not use the IGP as a dump truck. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that message resonates with people. As a result, we see people overburdening protocols when we need new subsystems. So yes, I would like us to not add more complexity to the IGP. But I expect that we will. And when we do, it would be best if our implementations didn’t implode. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
