Hi Ron, Please see inline:
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Bonica [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 8:48 PM > To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]>; Peter Psenak > <[email protected]>; Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; Gyan > Mishra <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > > Hi Jimmie, > > Inline..... > > Ron > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 11:06 PM > To: Peter Psenak <[email protected]>; Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; > Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; Gyan Mishra > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for your reply. It aligns with my understanding of FAD, which is just > a set > of constraints for path computation. Thus one Flex-Algo ID could be used with > multiple different data planes. Is this understanding correct? > > [RB] I never thought about this. Is there a use-case? I think that it will > work, > but I would have to try it before saying for sure. One possible case is to define one Flex-Algo (say FA-128) with delay metric and no admin-group (color) constraints. Then as Flex-Algo is data plane agnostic, FA-128 could be used to bind to prefix-SIDs, SRv6 locators or IP addresses. > > If so, my question is about the scenario below: > > A group of nodes in a network support FA-128, a sub-group of them bind FA-128 > to SR SIDs, another sub-group of them bind FA-128 to IP address. When one > node compute an SR path to a destination, can it compute the path to only pass > the nodes which bind FA-128 to SR SIDs, and avoid the nodes which bind FA-128 > to IP address? > > [RB] I don't think so. However, you could achieve the same outcome using link > colors. Do you mean to use different link colors to identify links with different data plane enabled? I believe it would work, while actually this is using different Flex-Algos (with different color constraints) for different data plane. Best regards, Jie > If so, how could this node know the binding of FA to different data planes on > other nodes? > > Best regards, > Jie > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lsr [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak > > Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 11:58 PM > > To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]>; Ron Bonica > > <[email protected]>; Yingzhen Qu > > <[email protected]>; Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for > > draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > > > > Hi Jimmy, > > > > > > On 09/10/2020 04:59, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: > > > Hi Ron, > > > > > > Thanks for explaining the difference between IP Flex-Algo and SR > > > Flex-algo. As > > you said, the major difference is the data plane. > > > > > > If my understanding is correct, for one Flex-Algo to be used > > > correctly, the set > > of nodes need to apply consistent constraints in computation, and bind > > the FAD to the same data plane. > > > > > > Is it possible that different nodes may use the same Flex-Algo with > > > different > > data plane, e.g. some with SR-MPLS, some with SRv6, and some with pure > > IP etc., or each Flex-Algo is always associated with only one data > > plane? In the former case, should the flex-algo definition also > > indicate the data plane(s) to be used with the flex-algo? > > > > let me respond to this query, as this is not specific to Ron's draft. > > > > FAD is data plane agnostic and is used by all of them. > > > > thanks, > > Peter > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Jie > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Lsr [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica > > >> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 4:34 AM > > >> To: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; Peter Psenak > > >> <[email protected]>; Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> > > >> Cc: [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> > > >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for > > >> draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > > >> > > >> Hi Yingzhen, > > >> > > >> IP Flexible Algorithms are like SR Flexible Algorithms in the > > >> following > > respects: > > >> > > >> - Links have IGP metrics, TE metrics, delay metrics and > > >> administrative colors > > >> - FADs define Flexible Algorithms > > >> > > >> More specifically, the FAD: > > >> > > >> - Indicates which metric type the Flexible Algorithm uses > > >> - Specifies constraints in terms of link colors that are included > > >> or excluded from the Flexible Algorithm. > > >> > > >> The significant difference between IP Flexible Algorithms and SR > > >> Flexible Algorithms is: > > >> > > >> - SR Flexible Algorithms bind FADs to prefix SIDs or SRv6 locators > > >> - IP Flexible Algorithms bind FADs to IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. > > >> > > >> So, IP Flexible Algorithms can be deployed in any IP network, even > > >> in the absence of SR. > > >> > > >> Ron > > >> > > >> > > >> Juniper Business Use Only > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> > > >> Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2020 2:08 PM > > >> To: Peter Psenak <[email protected]>; Gyan Mishra > > >> <[email protected]>; Ron Bonica <[email protected]> > > >> Cc: [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> > > >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for > > >> draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-00.txt > > >> > > >> [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi Peter, > > >> > > >> Using flex-algo, a SRv6 locator can be associated with a single > > >> algo, which means an IPv6 or IPv4 address can also be associated > > >> with a single algo. So my understanding is Ron's proposal is making > > >> the > > configuration of flex-algo easier? > > >> Instead of using the exclude or include list you can configure a > > >> loopback address to a flex-algo directly? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Yingzhen > > >> > > >> On 10/3/20, 2:47 AM, "Peter Psenak" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Yingzhen, > > >> > > >> On 02/10/2020 22:15, Yingzhen Qu wrote: > > >> > Hi Peter, > > >> > > > >> > My understanding of flex-algo is that for traffic destined > > >> to a prefix on a particular algo, it can only be routed on routers > > >> belong to that algo, which also means only routers in that algo > > >> calculates how to reach that prefix and install it into the routing > > >> table. It seems to me that using flex-algo (section 12 of the > > >> draft) it's possible to have a loopback address associated with > > >> only one algo, please correct me if I'm missing or misunderstood > something. > > >> > > >> you are right. That is exactly what is being done for flex-algo with > > >> SRv6 - locator is associated with a single algo only. The proposal > uses > > >> the same concept. > > >> > > >> thanks, > > >> Peter > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Yingzhen > > >> > > > >> > On 10/2/20, 9:43 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak" > > >> <[email protected] on behalf of > > >> [email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Gyan, > > >> > > > >> > On 02/10/2020 18:30, Gyan Mishra wrote: > > >> > > All, > > >> > > > > >> > > With SRv6 and IP based flex algo a generic question as it > > applies > > >> to > > >> > > both. Is it possible to have within a single IGP domain > > different > > >> sets > > >> > > of nodes or segments of the network running different > > >> algorithms. > > >> > > > >> > absolutely. > > >> > > > >> > > From > > >> > > both drafts it sounds like all nodes have to agree on same > > >> algorithm > > >> > > similar to concept of metric and reference bandwidth all > > have to > > >> have > > >> > > the same style metric and play to the same sheet of > music. > > >> > > > >> > all participating nodes need to agree on the definition of > the > > >> flex-algo > > >> > and advertise the participation. That's it. > > >> > > > >> > > If there was > > >> > > a way to use multiple algorithms simultaneously based > on > > SFC > > >> or services > > >> > > and instantiation of specific algorithm based on service > to > > be > > >> > > rendered. Doing so without causing a routing loop or > sub > > >> optimal > > >> > > routing. > > >> > > > >> > you can certainly use multiple algorithms simultaneously > and > > use > > >> algo > > >> > specific paths to forward specific traffic over it. How that > > >> is > > done > > >> > from the forwarding perspective depends in which > > forwarding > > >> plane you > > >> > use. Flex-algo control plane is independent of the > forwarding > > >> plane. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >I thought with flex algo that there exists a feature that on > > >> > > each hop there is a way to specify which algo to use hop > by > > hop > > >> similar > > >> > > to a hop by hop policy based routing. > > >> > > > >> > no, there is no hop-by-hop classification, that is > problematic > > and > > >> does > > >> > not scale for high speeds. Classification is done at the > > ingress only. > > >> > > > >> > thanks, > > >> > Peter > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > Lsr mailing list > > >> > [email protected] > > >> > > > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outl > > >> oo > > >> k.com/ > > >> ?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Flsr&data > > >> = > > 0 > > >> 2 > > >> > > > *7C01*7Cyingzhen.qu*40futurewei.com*7Cfe03124c6e414e067c2008d86781 > > >> > > 6541*7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc*7C1*7C0*7C63737315273986 > > >> > > > 5126&sdata=WI48cEAan*2FOkDPmVXGurEAjPItNGF9p9PDQIlD1ip0g*3D > > >> > > > &reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X1fRln9MjimeJcR > > >> EUEIydr-8IIbtNonXMs83eoXvRww6xkaQfVUdNh0kK452GP-G$ > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Lsr mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l > > >> > sr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TeHgIKM4lUZhkYnt_eFt3SshGJtln8PTqhCuZtODomUQWC > _H > > >> z218CE8S8XzlIxAA$ > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr_ > > > _;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TeHgIKM4lUZhkYnt_eFt3SshGJtln8PTqhCuZtODomUQWC_H > z218CE > > 8S8XzlIxAA$ _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
