Dear All,
I am neutral to combining the content of OSPF and IS-IS into a single draft.
However, I have 2 questions on this draft.
1.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Algorithm | Metric Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Alg. Type | Priority |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLVs |
+ +
| ... |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Algorithm: Flex-Algorithm number. Value between 128 and 255
inclusive.
Algorithm Type: Single octet identifying the algorithm type used
to compute paths for the Flex-Algoritm. Values are defined in
"IGP Algorithm Types" registry defined under "Interior Gateway
Protocol (IGP) Parameters" IANA registries.
Why there are two fields "Algorithm" and "Algorithm Type" ?
While algorithm-type defines currently only 2 algorithms (0-SPF and 1-Strict
SPF), that space can be carved out for user defined computation algorithms (I
presume). If yes, then "Algorithm Type" becomes user defined flexible
algorithm.
2. Also some of the sub-tlvs defined in the draft doesn't seem to belong to
Router capabilities; where algorithm description is being advertised.
Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV
" The Flexible-Algorithm definition can specify 'colors' that are used
by the operator to exclude links during the Flex-Algorithm path
computation.
--
Uma C.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lsr [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 2:53 AM
To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flex Algorithms Drafts
Hi Peter,
Ok - we'll decide during whether to merge during the WG adoption call. It would
be a good LSR experiment for a combined draft if there are no significant
differences between the protocols that would make a combined draft unwieldy.
Thanks,
Acee
On 4/12/18, 3:35 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Acee,
On 11/04/18 22:36 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> In preparation for WG adoption and IANA early code point allocation, I
suggest that we rename the “Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Metric Registry”
to the “Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Metric Type Registry” to avoid
confusion as to whether we are defining the actual metrics here. I know that in
the contexts of the drafts, it is clear but the registries are going to be on
their own. Additionally, while protocol TLV types should not be shared between
protocols, it seems this registry could be common and placed in our "Interior
Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry.
sure I can make that change.
>
> Finally, the OSPF version has a typo in section 8.2. The last two types
should be 2 and 3.
right, will fix it.
>
> o 0 - Reserved
>
> o 1 - Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV
>
> o 1 - Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV
>
> o 1 - Flexible Algorithm Exclude-All Group Sub-TLV
>
> Also, how so the authors feel about combining the drafts? I know the
IS-IS version has had more discussion and wouldn't want to hold it up if there
is a possibility. I don't feel strongly one way or another.
I'm fine both ways.
thanks,
Peter
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
