Peter,
IMO what Olivier has indicated is a practical and operational aspect.
The theoretical aspects of protocol operation is what this document is
extending. Those are two different things :) And this is not the
first time where IETF is manufacturing specs without any serious input
from folks who actually need to use it. The co-authors of this very
draft indicates it quite clearly - all vendors !
It would be very operationally complex and completely bizarre to run N
different TE applications concurrently in any production network. The
fact that you could or can does not make it immediately a good idea.
Perhaps great exercise for the lab though.
Even with one such TE mechanism there is a lot of things to manage and
that is why very few networks run full 100% TE. Further more as you
know TE reservations are all in control plane so the moment you
forward any significant amount of non TE traffic (unicast or
multicast) your entire TE magic is over.
Last I was hoping someone will answer how for a given link of RTT 20
ms - you could send different value per each application ? Or do you
mean that on any given link mpls RTT != IPv4 RTT != IPv6 RTT ?
Kind regards,
R.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:49 AM Peter Psenak <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Olivier,
On 12/04/2019 16:26 , [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Peter,
>
>
> Le 12/04/2019 à 15:27, Peter Psenak a écrit :
>> Hi Oliver,
>>
>> There are two major purposes served by the drafts:
>>
>> 1)Support of incongruent topologies for different applications
> Don't understand. What do you mean ?
RFC3630 allows the traffic engineering topology to be incongruent
with
the regular routing topology. This means that the RSVP TE topology
can
only be a subset of the regular routing topology. If there is a
need to
advertise some link attribute for the purpose of the other
application,
the link would become part of the RSVP TE topology, something that
may
not be desired.
>>
>> 2)Advertisement of application specific values even on links
that are in
>> use by multiple applications
> Hum. Do you think it makes sense to announce different TE metric
for the
> same link for different applications ? e.g. 10 ms delay for
RSVP-TE, 20
> ms for SR, 15 ms for LFA and 5 ms for Flex -Algo ? The link has
a fix
> delay propagation whatever the application.
>
> If the goal is to dedicated link per application, Resource
Class/Color
> attribute could be used. If you would advertised different
metric per
> CoS, then you need to dedicated metric per CoS like the unreserved
> bandwidth.
The goal is the allow the link to be used by multiple
applications, but
be advertised with application specific attributes.
>>
>> These issues are clearly articulated in the Introductions of both
>> drafts. LSR WG acknowledged them a while back and decided to
address
>> them.
>>
>> Issue #1 has already had a significant impact on early
deployments of
>> SRTE in networks where there is partial deployment of SR in the
presence
>> of RSVP-TE.
> Can you point me a concrete and detail example of the problem ?
With a
> PCE, there is no problem to manage both RSVP-TE and SR-TE in the
same
> network. And again, as already mention, if the problem come from
> bandwidth reservation, the draft will not solve the issue.
there is no way to advertise the link for the purpose of the SR-TE,
without it becoming the part of the RSVP-TE using existing
advertisements. Similarly applicable in the context of any other
application.
>>
>> Issue #2 will be seen in deployments where Flex-Algo and SRTE (or
>> RSVP-TE) are also present. Early implementers of Flex-Algo can
attest to
>> this.
> Again, I don't see the problem. Can you explain in detail ? I
already
> implement SR in OSPF, starting playing with TE, and there is no
problem
> to get TE information from OSPF to tune some Segment Path. If it
is an
> implementation issue, it is not a new RFC that will solve the
problem.
we are not trying to solve the implementation issue. We are
solving the
protocol issue. Both protocols have defined many link attributes
for the
purpose of the RSVP-TE. Some of these are usable outside of the
RSVP TE
and we are extending the protocols to support that.
Please read the discussion on the mailing list that happened prior to
the WG adoption of these drafts.
>>
>> It is simply not possible to address these issues with the existing
>> single set of application independent advertisements.
> Why ? Again, explain in detail. I don't see a real use case that
could
> not be address with standard TE attributes.
please see above.
thanks,
Peter
>>
>> The solutions we provide in both drafts allow to share the link
>> attributes between application as well as keep them separate if
that is
>> what is required.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>
> Regards
>
> Olivier
>
>>
>> On 11/04/2019 19:43 , [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm not in favour of this draft.
>>>
>>> As already mention, I don't see the interest to duplicate TE
attributes
>>> in new Extended Link Opaque LSA. For me, it is only a matter of
>>> implementation to look at various place in the OSPF TE
Database to take
>>> Traffic Engineering information.
>>>
>>> From an operator perspective, it is already hard to manage TE
attribute
>>> and I'm pretty sure that we could not ask network management
team to
>>> maintain 2 systems for certainly a long period of time as many TE
>>> attributes remains in the standard Opaque LSA Traffic Engineering.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Olivier
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 11/04/2019 à 18:11, Acee Lindem (acee) a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> LSR Working Group,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This begins a two week WG last call for the subject
document. Please
>>>> enter your support or objection to the document before 12:00
AM (EDT)
>>>> on Friday, April 27^th , 2019.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Acee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lsr mailing list
>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>>>
>>>
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous
>>> avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
>>> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
>>> deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>
>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
>>> privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without
authorisation.
>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
>>> and delete this message and its attachments.
>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages
that have
>>> been modified, changed or falsified.
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des
informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si
vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without
authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that
have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
