IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Wed, 02 June 2021 03:50 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
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 A61213A32FF for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 20:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 nXaK-1CxUjfN for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 20:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (mail-m17638.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 071FC3A32FE for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 20:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id BB1991C0139; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:50:37 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: 'Christian Hopps' <chopps@chopps.org>, lsr@ietf.org
References: <m2wnrlcitn.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org>
In-Reply-To: <m2wnrlcitn.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 11:50:37 +0800
Message-ID: <00ae01d75762$72fddbd0$58f99370$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHYD3b4RcJJSKABVO59eD7wMhUgTar+nSdg
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZS1VLWVdZKFlBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1 kPCRoVCBIfWUFZQxhISlYZTx9MQh4YHx1MGE9VEwETFhoSFyQUDg9ZV1kWGg8SFR0UWUFZT0tIVU pKS0hOT1VLWQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6MRQ6Lxw4HT8SERcqHwIhPRo5 EB4KCglVSlVKTUlJTUtOQ0hDSENPVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQUhJTUk3Bg++
X-HM-Tid: 0a79cad8360ed993kuwsbb1991c0139
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/KRH8C7d8PuaWn-3rNbIXTpi9x9I>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency SID Advertisement"
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 03:50:48 -0000

Hi, All:

Again, I support part of this draft be adopted. 

The deployment of Flex-Algo should be separated from the SR-TE Policy. Then
the use-case 1, 3 in section 3 should be pulled out, this can keep the
original design principle of Flex-Algo.
Adjacency-SID will only be included in the data packet when the packets need
pass a TI-LFA path, which is described in case-2 of section 3.

And, I saw there was contentions for the following paragraph in section 5:
"The endpoint of a link shared by multiple flex-algo plane can reserve
   different queue resources for different algorithms locally, and
   perform priority based queue scheduling and traffic shaping.  This
   algorithm related reserved information can be advertised to other
   nodes in the network through some mechanism, therefore it has an
   impact on the constraint based path calculation of the flex-algo
   plane.  How to allocate algorithm related resouce and advertise it in
   the network is out the scope of this document."

Since Flex-Algo doesn't consider the resource reservation, then such
reservation information needs not be advertised out of the node itself for
Flex-algo calculation.
The local behavior based on the flex-algo related Adjacency-SID can be
described if the authors prefer. 

SR-TE and Flex-Algo both can achieve the same goal, we need not mix them
together.


Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

-----Original Message-----
From: lsr-bounces@ietf.org <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Christian
Hopps
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 4:57 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Cc: 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-adjacency-
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
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email