Peter -
I am in agreement. However, the IANA section of the draft is missing some necessary information. The new top level TLVs in IS-IS - I am assuming you want these to share the sub-TLV space defined in https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-advertising-prefix-reachability In which case you need to provide a list of the existing sub-TLVs and an indication (Y/N) as to whether they are allowed in the new TLVs. Here is my initial take: 1 32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV Y 2 64-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV y 3 Prefix Segment Identifier n 4 Prefix Attribute Flags y 5 SRv6 End SID n 6 Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric n 11 IPv4 Source Router ID y 12 IPv6 Source Router ID y 32 BIER Info n(??) Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Peter Psenak > Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 7:14 AM > To: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; Peter Psenak > <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexa...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04 - > "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" > > Aijun, > > On 03/05/2022 15:52, Aijun Wang wrote: > > Hi, Peter: > > I think the logic is the following: > > FAPM is the sub-TLV of TLV 135,235,236 and 237, then it extends these TLVs > for advertising prefixes in algorithm 0 to other Flexible Algorithm. > > Then I see no reason to define the new top-TLV to encoding the similar > information. > > FAPM is used in SR-MPLS case where algo 0 prefix has multiple flex-algo > SIDs. So the algo 0 reachability is always advertised in legacy TLV and > FAPM is used to advertise additional flex-algo metric for inter-area or > external prefixes. > > We can not use it for IP flex-algo. > > thanks, > Peter > > > > > Aijun Wang > > China Telecom > > > >> On May 3, 2022, at 19:16, Peter Psenak > <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Aijun, > >> > >>> On 03/05/2022 11:57, Aijun Wang wrote: > >>> Hi, Peter： > >>> Different data planes use different Flex-Algorithm and associated > metric, they can’t be mixed. > >>> Or, would you like to point out why the following scenarios can’t be > achieved via the FAPM? > >>> 1) The PE router has three loopback addresses(Lo1-Lo3), each associated > with different Flex-ALgorithhms, and also different metrics. They are > advertised via the FAPM, no MPLS SIDs are associated with these loopack > prefixes advertisements. > >>> 2) The PE router has also another inter-area/inter-domain > prefixes(IPextra), with the FAPM and MPLS SID advertised via the prefixes > advertisements. > >>> When the PE in other ends want to send the traffic to theses addresses: > >>> 1) To the formers three destinations(Lo1-Lo3), the FIB that are formed > by the associated FAPM will be used, that is, the IP-based forwarding will be > selected. > >>> 2) To the Inter-area/inter-domain prefixes the FIB that are formed via > the FAPM and the associated SID, the MPLS-based forwarding will be > selected. > >>> Why can’t they coexist? > >> > >> FAPM Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237. These TLVs > advertise the reachability of the prefix in algorithm 0. > >> > >> For an IP algo prefix, which is associated with the flex-algorithm, the > reachability in algorithm 0 must not be advertised. So we have to use a > different top level TLV. > >> > >> > >> thanks, > >> Peter > >> > >> > >> > >>> Aijun Wang > >>> China Telecom > >>>>> On May 3, 2022, at 16:05, Peter Psenak > <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Aijun, > >>>> > >>>>> On 03/05/2022 09:59, Aijun Wang wrote: > >>>>> Hi, Peter: > >>>>> The definition of FAPM for IS-IS and OSPF doesn’t prevent from it is > used for the intra-area prefixes. > >>>>> If we advertise the different loopback addresses via the FAPM, > associate them to different Flex-Algo and related metrics, and does not > allocate the MPLS SID, we can achieve the IP-Flex effect then. > >>>> > >>>> as I said, we can not mix metrics for different data-planes. > >>>> > >>>>> So, what’s the additional value of the IP-Flexalgo draft then? > >>>> > >>>> please read the draft. It defines the flex-algo for IP data plane. > >>>> > >>>> thanks, > >>>> Peter > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Aijun Wang > >>>>> China Telecom > >>>>>>> On May 3, 2022, at 14:46, Peter Psenak > <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Aijun, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 03/05/2022 00:47, Aijun Wang wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi, Acee: > >>>>>>> The questions raised at > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/RlHphXCwxMbgGvcBV_m24xiDzS0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/RlHphXCwxMbgGvcBV_m24xiDzS0/> > /<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/RlHphXCwxMbgGvcBV_m24xiDzS0/> > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/RlHphXCwxMbgGvcBV_m24xiDzS<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/RlHphXCwxMbgGvcBV_m24xiDzS0/> > 0/<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/RlHphXCwxMbgGvcBV_m24xiDzS0/>> > has not been answered. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IS-IS Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV” and “OSPF Flexible > Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV” are defined for advertisement of algorithm > specific metric for inter-area inter-AS prefixes for SR-MPLS data-plane. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> SR MPLS and IP are independent data-planes used for flex-algo. We > can not mix their metric. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> thanks, > >>>>>> Peter > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Aijun Wang > >>>>>>> China Telecom > >>>>>>>>> On May 2, 2022, at 23:00, Acee Lindem (acee) > <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The WG last call has completed. We will submit an updated > version of the document for publication with the terminology changes based > on the discussion amongst the authors, Ketan, Robert, Gyan, and others. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> Acee > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> *From: *Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on > >>>>>>>> behalf of "Acee Lindem > (acee)" > <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> > >>>>>>>> *Date: *Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:07 PM > >>>>>>>> *To: *"lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" > >>>>>>>> <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> > >>>>>>>> *Cc: > >>>>>>>> *"draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexa...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexa...@ietf.org>" > >>>>>>>> <draft-ietf-lsr-ip-<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexa...@ietf.org> > flexa...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexa...@ietf.org>> > >>>>>>>> *Subject: *[Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip- > flexalgo-04 - "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This begins a WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-04. The > >>>>>>>> draft > had a lot of support and discussion initially and has been stable for some > time. Please review and send your comments, support, or objection to this > list before 12 AM UTC on April 22^nd , 2022. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> Acee > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> Lsr mailing list > >>>>>>>> Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> > >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Lsr mailing list > >>> Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
