Re: [Lsr] [spring] FlexAlgo and Global Adj-SIDs

[Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>]

Les,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.

I fully understand that the current SR extension drafts are too far advanced for any significant changes.

I also understand that Algo-specific Adj-SIDs require an update to RFC 8402 because today it does not recognize any such entities.
Therefore the discussion of use cases should probably start in the SPRING WG while effective the result would be "just" new Sub-TLV in IS-IS and OSPF with the actual work coming to the LSR WG. 

Any ideas as to what would be the best way to start this kind of discussions? 

Regards,
Sasha

Office: [phone]
Cell:      [phone]
Email:   [e-mail]


-----Original Message-----
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 6:37 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [spring] FlexAlgo and Global Adj-SIDs

Sasha -

draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions is currently in AD review - and the companion OSPF document has already been approved and is waiting for a dependent draft to progress before publication as an RFC.

It is too late to make significant changes.

Further, while I agree with both your description and Peter's response, agreeing that this "could" be done is not equivalent to having consensus that it "should" be done.
I think a more complete consideration of the deployment cases and the usefulness of such an extension should be discussed by the WG before we decide that we actually want to define such an extension.

  Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 8:29 AM
> To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- 
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [spring] FlexAlgo and Global Adj-SIDs
> 
> Peter,
> Lots of thanks for a prompt and very encouraging response.
> 
> Do you think that the new Algo specific Adj-SID sub-TLV could be added 
> to the current IS-IS segment Routing Extensions draft, or should be 
> handled in a small dedicated document?
> 
> Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha
> 
> Office: [phone]
> Cell:      [phone]
> Email:   [e-mail]
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 5:28 PM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- 
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [spring] FlexAlgo and Global Adj-SIDs
> 
> Hi Sasha,
> 
> On 02/03/2019 18:57 , Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
> > Peter,
> > Lots of thanks for a prompt and hivhly informative response.
> >
> > It seems that per-FlexAlgo Adj-SIDs can be useful even if they are 
> > local

___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is 
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this 
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original 
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________