Return-Path: X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20C393A0AC8 for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 06:37:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Hmhy-qEugA6 for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 06:37:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CNSHJSMIN05.NOKIA-SBELL.COM (cnshjsmin05.nokia-sbell.com [116.246.26.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CC653A0ACF for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 06:37:34 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: ac18929d-869ff7000001e41d-be-5eb56098ac0c Received: from CNSHPPEXCH1601.nsn-intra.net (Unknown_Domain [135.251.51.101]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by CNSHJSMIN05.NOKIA-SBELL.COM (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 55.68.58397.89065BE5; Fri, 8 May 2020 21:37:28 +0800 (HKT) Received: from CNSHPPEXCH1605.nsn-intra.net (135.251.51.105) by CNSHPPEXCH1601.nsn-intra.net (135.251.51.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1847.3; Fri, 8 May 2020 21:37:27 +0800 Received: from CNSHPPEXCH1605.nsn-intra.net ([135.251.51.105]) by CNSHPPEXCH1605.nsn-intra.net ([135.251.51.105]) with mapi id 15.01.1847.007; Fri, 8 May 2020 21:37:27 +0800 From: "Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai)" To: "lsr@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo Thread-Index: AdYlOXl7J26ZJEOiSNe/050l75qS7g== Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 13:37:27 +0000 Message-ID: <7255730c312a40a1a2d36972095845a4@nokia-sbell.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.251.51.115] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7255730c312a40a1a2d36972095845a4nokiasbellcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXS/ts4VXdmwtY4g117GC1OPFnB6sDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujDm3etkLFilWTPo/m7mB8bpMFyMnh4SAicSpkw1sXYxcHEIC h5gk9m+byQiSEBL4wyhxoK8cIrGRUaLtzzUmkASbgJvEpG27gDo4OEQEFCU2/zQGCQsDmQ9m NbKB2CICahL7N91jhrD1JFa83AHWyiKgIjHj0S+w+bwCdhJ9ze9YQWxGATGJ76fWgNUwC4hL 3HoynwniOAGJJXvOM0PYohIvH/9jBVkrIaAk0bcBqjxVYtfC3ewQIwUlTs58wjKBUWgWkkmz kJTNQlIGEdeRWLD7ExuErS2xbOFrZhj7zIHHTMjiCxjZVzFKO/sFe3gF+3r6GZjq+fl7ezrq Bju5+vjoOfv7bmIERscaiUlzdzA2zfygd4iRiYPxEKMEB7OSCO/Eii1xQrwpiZVVqUX58UWl OanFhxilOViUxHnXGa+MExJITyxJzU5NLUgtgskycXBKNTBVsq5fWpUU6Pbfuv/r3/P+m+28 g8vCiwWyqx0nb9FSuX3Msy/Q+s2Od0a+t0XNsv65sr5SCPu2Y5Ug4wvbdPGQZWF/6uRX9OQ/ SpactfTMZ9eWhua+o6czr29+2bxMY9eqy1GMf+YrNUys+vjDsKrqvYVfv69DkVaVs4h4wbYD ri8cffval6vmylfIJeyeLRSSv+6zfXbV2c5f3T3mBwTucU2U9A2Y8cbYzNQqu/voj8UPLoau UBQxPXZxXtTE930VZ9l0Xpv7f7yrc6N8o0bepf2pt3YquzOt+/o0zoc336SEM8RIf+/Jjsk6 RqZ5kiW9U+WfSx66pLqb51l1o2xf/vunUz8vyY27sqigTomlOCPRUIu5qDgRAGaMDfX9AgAA Archived-At: Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 13:37:40 -0000 --_000_7255730c312a40a1a2d36972095845a4nokiasbellcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi authors: After reading through this draft lsr-flex-algo, I want to know whether ther= e is a potential goal of this draft to reduce the SRH size with enabling fl= ex-algo with admin group in SRv6 deployment, because without flex-algo we h= ave to have a big SRH size when the SRH include more SRv6 SIDs, if we enabl= e flex-algo under special topology and link constraint condition, in theory= we can even construct a end to end SR path/tunnel without SRH, but it sti= ll meet TE requirement. So my question is whether the flex-algo can be used= as tool to reduce SRH size? Cheers ! WANG Weibin --_000_7255730c312a40a1a2d36972095845a4nokiasbellcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi authors:

 

After reading through this draft lsr-flex-algo, I wa= nt to know whether there is a potential goal of this draft to reduce the SR= H size with enabling flex-algo with admin group in SRv6 deployment, because= without flex-algo we have to have a big SRH size when the SRH include more SRv6 SIDs, if we enable flex-algo= under special topology and link constraint condition, in theory we can eve= n construct  a end to end SR path/tunnel without SRH, but it still mee= t TE requirement. So my question is whether the flex-algo can be used as tool to reduce SRH size?

 

 

 

Cheers !

 

WANG Weibin

--_000_7255730c312a40a1a2d36972095845a4nokiasbellcom_--