Peter, Thank you! I've studied this draft in LSR WG multiple times. I had a difficult time thinking how a router computing the paths when receiving 100+ topologies for one IGP domain, until being told most deployments only having handful of topologies. Linda -----Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 2:57 AM To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; lsr@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-23 Hi Linda, On 22/09/2022 00:24, Linda Dunbar via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review result: Has Nits > > I have reviewed this document as part of the Ops area directorate's > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the > IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Ops area directors. > Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like > any other last call comments. > > This document specifies a set of extensions to IGP to enable multiple > topologies within one IGP domain, and each topology has its unique > constraint-based path computation metric. > > It would be very helpful if Section 15 (Operational Consideration) > included some considerations on the number of topologies to be created > for exemplary deployments. Even though theoretically, > hundreds/thousands of topologies can be supported by the mechanisms > described in the draft, in practice, probably only a handful of (or > even fewer) Flex-Algorithms are needed per IGP domain. It would be so > much easier to follow the document if knowing only two or three Flex-Algorithm are needed. the maximum number of flex-algos is determined by the algorithm range that is (128-255), as specified in section 4 of the draft: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-23%23section-4&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C1f01cedc0b8b47ea277808da9c6fff8f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637994302096955841%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tZyj49cl6PorH91QIoebPQ8PcTTWKGNJwDaCIel2GEE%3D&reserved=0 I can add a sentence in the draft saying that the expected deployment is to use only a subset of those. thanks, Peter > > Thank you > Linda Dunbar > > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
