Hi, Acee: It seems that you try to LOOP the discussions. Then, you can't illustrate the scenario that the operator want make their traffic intensely asymmetric, right?
Let's discuss your new statement, would you like to describe, or give the reference, what is the " meet minimum standard for LSR."? Is it your judgement only? Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -----邮件原件----- 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Acee Lindem 发送时间: 2025年2月14日 9:25 收件人: Aijun Wang <[email protected]> 抄送: Gert Doering <[email protected]>; [email protected]; lsr <[email protected]> 主题: [savnet] Re: [Lsr] [BM-SPF: Solve asymmetrical routing within IGP to achieve one simple intra-domain SAV solution] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-bidirectional-metric-spf-00.txt > On Feb 13, 2025, at 20:06, Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Acee: > > Speak as WG member. > Would like to illustrate the scenario that the operators want to make > intentionally the traffic asymmetric? > On the contrary, as one member from the operator, we are trying to > eliminate the asymmetric routing now, not intense it. The BM-SPF is > one efficient tool to eliminate this abnormal traffic routing. Then use symmetric link costs. > > From my POV, the asymmetric routing is one historical problem that > leads by the impossible control of bi-directional cost for every link > on every router, which should be corrected. > BTW, if we can assure the symmetric routing within the IGP network, > regardless of the historical, current, or in future manual > configuration, it can give us many benefits(traffic identify, control > and QoS assurance etc.), not only the intra-domain SAV solution. > > Another point is that, if we adopt the BM-SPF, we don't need RFC 8500 > and RFC 9339 for the reverse metric based solutions to accomplish the > traffic diversion then. These RFC apply in individual links not the entire IGP area - so no this doesn’t obviate the need for these drafts. Independent of use cases, the draft doesn’t use the also prescribed mechanisms for modifying the SPF compatation and doesn’t meet minimum standard for LSR. Thanks, Acee > > > Best Regards > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2025年2月12日 0:46 > 收件人: Gert Doering <[email protected]> > 抄送: Aijun Wang <[email protected]>; [email protected]; lsr > <[email protected]> > 主题: Re: [savnet] [Lsr] [BM-SPF: Solve asymmetrical routing within IGP > to achieve one simple intra-domain SAV solution] New Version > Notification for draft-wang-lsr-bidirectional-metric-spf-00.txt > > > >> On Feb 11, 2025, at 11:11 AM, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:56:37AM -0500, Acee Lindem wrote: >>> I hope in 2025 no one is logging into routers and configuring them >>> one at > a time. >> >> You'd be surprised... >> >> But that said, there are very good reasons to intentionally configure >> different SPF costs left and right of a link. So assuming that by >> magic both the intentional and the accidential "non-symmetric" costs >> disappear won't work. > > I'm not disputing that there is not a reason for configuring > non-symmetric cost - however, if they are configured, it is assumed > this intentional and they should be used. Not using the asymmetric > cost to simplify SAV is just contradictory. > Thanks, > Acee > > >> >> Also, even on symmetric costs, be careful with ECMP links. >> >> Gert Doering >> -- NetMaster >> -- >> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >> >> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo > Lalla, >> Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler >> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > -- savnet 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]
