Hi Acee,
On 28/01/2025 20:14, Acee Lindem wrote:
Ok - I guess you can add a registry now if you want.
I would, it's a clear reference of all rules we have defined at any
point in time.
We don’t have any WG drafts adding flex-algo rules but we have
draft-gong-lsr-flex-algo-exclude-node as an individual draft. I seem
to recall discussion as to whether this draft is necessary since a
node could be excluded by not participating in the flex-algo.
that draft is not needed.
thanks,
Peter
Thanks,
Acee
On Jan 28, 2025, at 13:58, Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Acee,
we require strict ordering - it may not be necessary now, but in the
future we may introduce something that will need it, so we started to
enforce it from day 1.
thanks,
Peter
On 28/01/2025 19:54, Acee Lindem wrote:
Speaking as WG member:
Hi Les, Peter, Shraddha,
On Jan 24, 2025, at 10:34 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<[email protected]> wrote:
I have reviewed the draft and support moving ahead with publishing
this as an RFC.
The primary use case is well described in Section 3 of the draft.
Note this is NOT, as some folks have mistakenly inferred from the
draft title, aimed at multicast RPF use cases.
As regards the evolving set of rules for flex-algo calculations, I
think the current model of adding an appendix with the full list of
updated rules is problematic.
We now have three documents which define rules:
RFC 9350
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con
draft-ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity
Each document is accurate based on the rules defined at the time of
publication.
But as each document is published - with potentially more on the
way - it becomes difficult to know which is the "latest".
Readers of one document might not be aware of the other documents.
Perhaps the authors of the two drafts above could consider
introducing an IANA Registry which has the ordered list of rules
(and appropriate references for each) so that there is one source
of truth.
Each document would then simply specify the updates to the IANA
registry.
I don't think we need this, since all the interface constraints need
to be satisfied for an interface to used in a given flex algorithm,
I don't see that the ordering of the rules is important.
Maybe the text in the two flex-algo drafts which are going to
progress and be published shouldn't imply strict ordering.
Thanks,
Acee
Les
-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 11:03 AM
To: lsr <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call of "IGP Flexible Algorithms
Reverse
Affinity Constraint" -
draft-ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity-03
LSR WG,
This email begins a 3 week WG Last Call for the following draft:
"IGP Flexible
Algorithms Reverse Affinity Constraint" -
draft-ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-
affinity-03"
Please review the document and indicate your support or objections by
February 7th, 2025. The extra week is to account for the Lunar New
Year
holiday.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
