Hi Shraddha and Les,





Sorry for late reply and thanks for your comments. 





Yes, the maximum link metric mechanism is an option as described in section 4 
of the draft. 





But, it has two defects which we also wanted to discuss in ietf 114 meeting.





Firstly, it restricts the Flex-Algorithm from using IGP-Cost as its metric-type.


Secondly, it does not work with OSPF. For OSPF,the links with maximummetric 
value(65535) are also included in the SPF calculation,even if not preferred. If 
there are no other preferred paths,the Flex-Algoritnm links will still affect 
the result of thenormal SPF calculation.





Due to the time constraints,The presentation has been moved to the interim 
meeting on 2022-09-21. For more detail, please refer to the slides.


https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/114/materials/slides-114-lsr-13-exclusive-link-for-flex-algo-00.
  


  


In view of these two cases, new protocol extension becomes necessary. 





As for the backward incompatible issues, we think it can be avoided by 
deployment. 





For example, the new extension should be deployed in sync with the Flex-Algo 
feature, so that all the routers in one IGP domain will run the same software 
version. 





Looking forward to your reply.





Best Regards,


Liyan





----邮件原文----发件人:"Les Ginsberg \\(ginsberg\\)" 
<[email protected]>收件人:Shraddha Hegde  
<[email protected]>,"[email protected]" <[email protected]>抄 送: 
(无)发送时间:2022-07-29 21:14:08主题:Re: [Lsr] Comments on 
draft-gong-lsr-exclusive-link-for-flex-algo     

I fully agree with Shraddha.


 


In fact Section 4 of the draft makes clear why no protocol extensions are 
needed.


 


   Les


 




From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde Sent: Friday, July 
29, 2022 2:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Lsr] Comments on 
draft-gong-lsr-exclusive-link-for-flex-algo




 


Authors,


 


 


I suggest that the usecase can be satisfied using the backward compatible


Maximum link metric mechanism defined in the draft.


I don’t see any need to define protocol extensions,


that are backward incompatible and can cause serious issues in the network


in the presence of older implementations.


 


Rgds


Shraddha


 


Juniper Business Use Only





_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to