Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Thu, 10 December 2020 02:13 UTC

Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.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 F1FC03A03FA for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 18:13:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 Bh_ZoNnwHEqN for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 18:13:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 7B8563A03F5 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 18:13:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 57536E48E06FCE1EF32B; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:13:20 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp03.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.202]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 0BA2D2Do062035; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:13:03 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:13:02 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:13:02 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af95fd1842e7a27e850
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202012101013028349677@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <6464cc14-2813-3db3-8ec4-94946aa2b995@cisco.com>
References: 777B2AC4-CACF-4AB0-BFC7-B0CFFA881EEB@cisco.com, 88ecf32fdb4142fbab23f4700335a504@huawei.com, 7b966115-5c34-64e0-8d04-44ac0eb3324e@cisco.com, 6855c46eed1846a2b6db6ff8c4cbd5ea@huawei.com, 6464cc14-2813-3db3-8ec4-94946aa2b995@cisco.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
To: <ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: <huzhibo@huawei.com>, <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 0BA2D2Do062035
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/_MtJZXmVhBbt3JXuuu-YaDVzDi4>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] =?utf-8?q?WG_Adoption_Call_for_=22IGP_Flexible_Algorithms_?= =?utf-8?q?=28Flex-Algorithm=29_In_IP_Networks=22_-_draft-bonica-lsr-ip-fl?= =?utf-8?q?exalgo-01?=
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: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 02:13:26 -0000

Hi Peter,






Is it possible for a TI-LFA path, expressed as a native IP address list,  to be encoded in a Routing Header which is not necessarily Segment Routing Header, or to be encoded in LSRR option defined in RFC791 ?






Regards,


PSF














原始邮件



发件人:PeterPsenak
收件人:Huzhibo;Acee Lindem (acee);lsr;
日 期 :2020年12月09日 20:44
主 题 :Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01


Hi Zhibo,
 
On 09/12/2020 13:05, Huzhibo wrote:
> Hi Peter:
>  
>      If Ti-LFA can protect IP flexalgo, the native IP and SR must share the same algorithm ID.
 
that is correct.
 
thanks,
Peter
>  
> thanks,
> Zhibo
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:16 PM
> To: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>om>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org> 
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01
>  
> Zhibo,
>  
> On 09/12/2020 11:50, Huzhibo wrote:
>> Hi authors,
>> 
>> Here are some comments about IP flexalgo as follows:
>> 
>> 1.In Flex-Algo draft, there is description about using fast-rerouting
>> with Flex-Algo for SR-MPLS and SRv6 data plane. It is recommended that
>> similar text be added for IP Flex-Algo.
>  
> there is a similar text in section 8, but more work is required indeed.
>  
> One important note - TI-LFA requires some form of traffic steering. This can be achieved by enabling both IP and SR flex-algo and use SR FA only to protect IP FA, similar to protection of "unlabeled" traffic with SR MPLS. Or some alternative mechanism for enforcing the traffic on the LFA path is required.
>  
>> 
>> 2.Is Application-Specific Link Attribute (ASLA) MUST be used for IP
>> Flex-Algo path computation?
>  
> yes, the flex-algo application uses Flex-algo specific link attributes as defined in base flex-algo draft.
>  
> thanks,
> Peter
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Zhibo
>> 
>> *From:*Lsr [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Acee Lindem
>> (acee)
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 2, 2020 5:13 AM
>> *To:* lsr <lsr@ietf.org> 
>> *Subject:* [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms
>> (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01
>> 
>> This IP Flex Algorithm draft generated quite a bit of discussion on
>> use cases and deployment prior to IETF 109 and there was generally
>> support for WG adoption. This begins a two week WG adoption call.
>> Please indicate your support or objection to WG adoption on this list
>> prior to
>> 12:00 AM UTC on December 16^th , 2020. Also, review comments are
>> certainly welcome.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Acee
>> 
>  
>  
>  
 
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr