Hi Mengxiao,
please see inline (##PP):
On 29/03/2022 05:45, Chenmengxiao wrote:
Hi Peter,
Sorry to reply late. Please see inline.
Thanks,
Mengxiao Chen
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 4:16 PM
To: chenmengxiao (RD) <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-lin-lsr-flex-algo-metric-00
Hi Mengxiao,
please see inline:
On 25/03/2022 07:35, Chenmengxiao wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thank you for the comments.
>
> Time for the presentation is very limited. Glad to receive your comments
> here.
>
> I agree that flex-algo is much easier to deploy and manage than MT,
> which make it a popular tool now.
>
> But I think using algorithm-specific link metric will not cause the loss
> of this property.
>
> For example, flex-algo 128 and flex-algo 129 need to use different
> metrics of the same metric-type for the same link.
>
> Solution A: Use algorithm-based metric for algorithm 128 and
algorithm 129
>
> Solution B: Use metric-type-based metric for metric-type 128 and
> metric-type 129 (according to Shraddha's suggestion,
> draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con)
>
> Both in the two solutions, extra link metric tlvs need to be advertised,
> and they are stored locally, no matter algorithm-based or
metric-type-based.
yes, but for B, any other algorithm may share the metric used for algo
128 or 129. That is not possible with A.
You may argue that in your case you only have two algos, so the result
ts similar. Yes, but from the architecture perspective there is a
difference.
[MXC] Yes, from the perspective of protocol, metric-type 128 and 129 in
solution B are possible to be shared by other algorithm. But if we focus
on the case here, metric-type 128 and 129 are used to configure their
unique metrics for the same public type (bandwidth or TE metric), so the
chance of sharing may be very low in practice.
From another perspective, if we use user-defined metric-type, we need
to advertise it for every link. But if we use algorithm-specific link
metric, the algorithm may only advertise the algorithm-specific metrics
of a few links whose metric value are different from the common metric.
##PP
I do not see any reason why we would need to advertise user-defined
metric-type for every link. You can only advertise for links that are to
be used by FAs that use that metric type.
TLV-22 of Solution A:
metric <- IGP metric (used by all algorithms, if no
algorithm-specific advertised)
generic metric <- other type (used by all algorithms, if no
algorithm-specific advertised)
ASLA
link attribute <- TE metric/delay (used by all algorithms,
if no algorithm-specific advertised)
algorithm-specific metric <- metric for algorithm 128
algorithm-specific metric <- metric for algorithm 128
TLV-22 of Solution B:
metric <- IGP metric (used by all algorithms)
generic metric <- other type (used by all algorithms)
generic metric <- type 128 (for algorithm 128)
generic metric <- type 129 (for algorithm 129)
ASLA
link attribute <- TE metric/delay (used by all algorithms)
Not to mention that for A we would need to extend the FAD.
[MXC] That’s true. I think a new bit in the Flexible Algorithm
Definition Flags can be used for such extension. We’ve missed it in the
current version of draft. Thank you for pointing out. >
>
> During path computation, the difference is that, solution A needs to
> check if there is algorithm-based metric for the link. If yes,
> algorithm-based metric is preferred. If no, common metric is used.
>
> IMHO, even if the algorithm-specific link metric is used, flex-algo is
> still light weight, compared with MT.
not really, because it advertise algo specific metric that can not be
used by any other algo, which is similar to topology specific metric in MT.
I would encourage you to consider option B as a solution for your problem.
[MXC] Thanks for your suggestion. I don’t doubt that solution B can
solve our problem at current stage. In solution B, user-defined
metric-type is used as a substitution for algorithm-specific metric of a
standard metric-type.
##PP
I would rephrase a bit.
Metric-type is an existing mechanism in flex-algo architecture that
allows you to use per algorithm metric values.
But if there are strong requirements to advertise different metrics for
different algorithms, I would prefer solution A (algorithm-specific link
metric). Assume that, an algorithm uses metric-type X for path
computation, and it also uses metric-type Y as constraints. And it has
its own metrics for both metric-type X and Y. The user-defined
metric-type may not be adequate in such case.
##PP
there is no such thing as metric constraint at the moment. Metric is
used for algo specific SPF computation only.
Besides, I still think that flex-algo with algorithm-specific link
metric will not become MT.
##PP
it will become dangerously close to it :)
thanks,
Peter
The control plane and data plane are so
different. >
thanks,
Peter
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mengxiao Chen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>]
On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 11:09 PM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: [Lsr] draft-lin-lsr-flex-algo-metric-00
>
> Hi,
>
> as I was unable to make my comments during the presentation, let me put
>
> them here:
>
> When we started with the flex-algo work, there has been a lengthy
>
> discussion on why not to use the multi-topology (MT) instead. We always
>
> wanted flex-algo to be light weight and as a result easy to deploy and
>
> manage. I believe that was one of the reasons why flex-algo has been
>
> successfully deployed. We do not want to loose that very property of the
>
> flex-algo architecture.
>
> What you are proposing is what MT was invented for and we do not want
>
> flex-algo to become a new version of MT.
>
> You have two ways to solve your problem:
>
> a) use MT
>
> b) if you want to solve your problem with flex-algo, please use what
>
> already exists in flex-algo. Please look at
>
> draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con as others have pointed out.
>
> thanks,
>
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Lsr mailing list
>
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出
> 的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄
> 露、复制、
> 或散发）本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人
> 并删除本
> 邮件！
> This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
> New H3C, which is
> intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above.
> Any use of the
> information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to,
> total or partial
> disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the
> intended
> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
> notify the sender
> by phone or email immediately and delete it!
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
