Hi Jie Some answers in-line
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:31 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong= [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Yingzhen, I’ve read the latest version of this document and support its adoption. It is a useful feature in general to exclude some of the links from SPF computation. I also have some comments for the authors to consider, they can be solved after the adoption. 1. I’m not sure the purpose is to advertise an unreachable link in OSPF, from the use cases in the draft, the link is still reachable and can be used for some services, just it needs be excluded from normal SPF calculation. If this is correct, it is better the title of the draft and the name of the new capability Flag need to be updated to reflect this. Gyan> I agree with you and that is as well stated in the draft that MaxLinkMetric (0xFFFF) does not exclude the link from SPF and thus requires RI LSA with capability bit set for MaxLinkMetric (0xFFFF) for link to be excluded from SPF. Maybe “OSPF RI Capability LSA”. > 2. In the Flex-Algo use case, if the metric of a link is set to > MaxLinkMetric (0xFFFF) to exclude it from normal SPF computation, while a > Flex-Algo is defined to use the same metric type for path calculation, will > it cause the link also be excluded from the Flex-Algo path computation? If > not, will metric value 0xFFFF be used in the Flex-Algo computation? In > other word, the interaction between this new feature and Flex-Algo needs to > be further elaborated. > > Gyan> I agree that the RI LSA capability flag for MaxLinkMetric > (0xFFFF) is applicable to base Algo 0 and any Algo. However AFAIK you > would have to explicitly set the RI flag the particular Algo. The use case > described in this draft is when you are using flex algo for network slicing > meaning you have both algo 0 and 128 on the same links and not a separate > sub topology and in that case in order to avoid best effort traffic from > going over the same link used for algo 128 you would need to use this RI > capability flag. This concept we have talked about comes into play of > degree of network slicing and isolation to meet SLO SLE requirements. > > Best regards, > > Jie > > > > *From:* Lsr [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Yingzhen Qu > *Sent:* Friday, February 23, 2024 1:28 PM > *To:* lsr <[email protected]>; lsr-chairs <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-gong-lsr-ospf-unreachable-link > (02/23/24 - 03/08/24) > > > > Hi, > > > > This email begins a 2 week WG adoption poll for the following draft: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gong-lsr-ospf-unreachable-link/ > > > > Please review the document and indicate your support or objections by March > 8th, 2024. > > Authors and contributors, please respond to the list indicating whether you > are aware of any IPR that applies to the draft. > > Thanks, > > Yingzhen > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
