Hi Robert,
On 17/05/2022 12:11, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Actually I would like to further clarify if workaround 1 is even doable ...
It seems to me that the IP flexalgo paradigm does not have a way for
more granular then destination prefix forwarding.
that is correct. In IP flex-algo the prefix itself is bound to the
algorithm.
So if I have http traffic vs streaming vs voice going to the same load
balancer (same dst IP address) there seems to be no way to map some
traffic (based on say port number) to take specific topology.
no, you can not do that with IP flex-algo.
That's pretty coarse and frankly very limiting for applicability of IP
flex-algo. If I am correct the draft should be very explicit about this
before publication.
please look at the latest version of the draft, section 3:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo#section-3
thanks,
Peter
Kind regards
R.
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 12:01 PM Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net
<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote:
Folks,
A bit related to Aijun's point but I have question to the text from
the draft he quoted:
In cases where a prefix advertisement is received in both a IPv4
Prefix Reachability TLV and an IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability
TLV, the IPv4 Prefix Reachability advertisement MUST be preferred
when installing entries in the forwarding plane.
Does this really mean that I can not for a given prefix say /24 use
default topology for best effort traffic and new flex-algo topology
for specific application ?
Is the "workaround 1" to always build two new topologies for such
/24 prefix (one following base topo and one new) and never advertise
it in base topology ?
Is the "workaround 2" to forget about native forwarding and use for
example SR and mark the packets such that SID pool corresponding to
base topology forwarding will be separate from SID pool
corresponding to new flex-algo topology ?
Many thx,
Robert
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: *Acee Lindem via Datatracker* <nore...@ietf.org
<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>>
Date: Mon, May 16, 2022 at 3:36 PM
Subject: [Lsr] Publication has been requested for
draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-06
To: <j...@juniper.net <mailto:j...@juniper.net>>
Cc: <a...@cisco.com <mailto:a...@cisco.com>>,
<iesg-secret...@ietf.org <mailto:iesg-secret...@ietf.org>>,
<lsr-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-cha...@ietf.org>>, <lsr@ietf.org
<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
Acee Lindem has requested publication of
draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-06 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the
LSR working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo/>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
