Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency SID Advertisement"

Hi authors,

I have reviewed the document and agree with Les.

Please remove the mechanisms that haven't been defined in the existing Flex-algo based on draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo, including using algorithm related IGP-Adjacency SID to allocate resource/select queue/distinguish traffic/determine Qos Policy, which will make the readers confused and blur the theme of document.

Best

Xuesong

-----Original Message-----
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 1:04 PM
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency SID Advertisement"

I support adoption of this draft.

I believe that there are use cases for algorithm specific adjacency-sids - primarily (and non-controversially) to provide algorithm specific repair paths.

As others have commented, other use cases mentioned in this draft involve introducing significant new functionality which has not been discussed or accepted by the WG (e.g., resource allocation). This topic deserves to be reviewed by the WG on its own merit in a separate draft.

This draft should confine itself to defining the new advertisements required to support algorithm specific adjacency-sids and discussing the repair path use case.

I would also like to see some discussion of deployment considerations including:

a)When to allocate/advertise algorithm specific adjacency-sids vs when to continue to use algorithm independent adjacency sids.

b)Strict-SID algo-sids are not useful

c)Use case should drive the type(s) of algorithm specific adjacency-sids allocated/advertised. For example,  if primary use case is for algorithm specific repair paths, then only sids with B flag set ("eligible for protection") are required.

Simply allocating algorithm specific adjacency SIDs for all supported algorithms all the time is a recipe for bloating the protocol link advertisements unnecessarily.

   Les

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps

> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 1:57 PM

> To: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>

> Cc: chopps@chopps.org<mailto:chopps@chopps.org>

> Subject: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorithm Related

> IGP-Adjacency SID Advertisement"

>

>

> Hi Folks,

>

> This begins a 2 week WG Adoption Call for the following draft:

>

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-lsr-algorithm-related-adja

> cency-

> sid/

>

> Please indicate your support or objections by June 9th, 2021

>

> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware

> of any IPR that applies to this draft.

>

> Thanks,

> Acee and Chris.

>

> _______________________________________________

> Lsr mailing list

> Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

_______________________________________________

Lsr mailing list

Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr