Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> writes:
Hi Chris, It seems that there is a subtle but important element on which we may have different opinion. You said: "has to deploy new software that contains the new Wizbang feature, right?" IMO however we are dealing with case where software already supports all required functions on a box. It is just not using it from day one. You buy a router with OS features which allow you to build zoo of different forwarding paradigms. Say day one you see a need to enable flex-algo_1 You enable day one links to distribute link attributes required for this. Day two you want to define new FAD and flood this enabling new flex-algo_2. You reuse already present link attributes entirely or partially in flex-algo_2 computation. You do not need to touch 100000s of links each time you enable new flex_algo.
This is purely user interface code, you can do this w/o changing the on the wire standard encoding. Thanks, Chris. [as wg-member]
That's a selling point to me. If we would expect that folks will limit flex-algo to just a few maybe this all does not matter. But if we see proposals with rainbow of colors each mapped to different flex-algo and perhaps subtle forwarding difference (same metric but just a different min threshold per each flex-algo) it seems pretty bad idea to explicitly enable each app each time such new threshold used to build different topology. Example: link attribute: delay applications: flex-algo_1 - build topology where max delay does not exceed 10 ms - color: premium best effort flex-algo_2 - build topology where max delay does not exceed 8 ms - color: black flex-algo_3 - build topology where max delay does not exceed 6 ms - color: bronze flex-algo_4 - build topology where max delay does not exceed 4 ms - color: blue flex-algo_5 - build topology where max delay does not exceed 3 ms - color: silver flex-algo_6 - build topology where max delay does not exceed 3 ms - color: gold etc ... Now tell me how does it make sense to enable each app on the link delay attribute ? Cheers, Robert On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 6:42 AM Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> writes: > Les, > > I don't think this is noise. > > Your examples are missing key operational consideration .. Link > attribute applicable to ANY application may be advertised well ahead > of enabling such application in a network. > > So requesting operator to always advertise tuple of app + attr is not > looking forward and makes unnecessary operational burden. [as wg-member] Hi Robert, Originally this was the argument that sort of put wind in the sails (for me) for this any bit, but some more thinking about how things would really work changed my mind. In order for some new feature, let's call it Wizbang, to take advantage of existing any bit marked attributes, the operator still has to deploy new software that contains the new Wizbang feature, right? So the addition of a new Wizbang bit pretty much comes free for the operator. So, this draft really is just about making the encoding a bit more efficient. I think if we were defining a new encoding, having this functionality makes sense, but we aren't defining a new encoding. The proposal is to change an existing published encoding, and the bar has to be higher for that I think. Thanks, Chris. [as wg member] > > Thx. > R. > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
