[Lsr] draft-draft-peng-lsr-algorithm-related-adjacency-sid

chen.ran@zte.com.cn Thu, 11 March 2021 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <chen.ran@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 4073F3A160A for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 00:52:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 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] 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 zUkvmwCDTkM7 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 00:52:21 -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 6367D3A160B for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 00:52:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id B05787428F38A1624927; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 16:52:18 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp05.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.204]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 12B8prNG044673; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 16:51:53 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 16:51:52 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 16:51:52 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afb6049da280032fd30
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202103111651528716447@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <chen.ran@zte.com.cn>
To: <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Cc: <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 12B8prNG044673
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/ernMO__y7qjKA67injDzrikVwUU>
Subject: [Lsr] =?utf-8?q?draft-draft-peng-lsr-algorithm-related-adjacency?= =?utf-8?q?-sid?=
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, 11 Mar 2021 08:52:23 -0000

Hi Tony, 


   Thanks for your comments. The reason why this draft is proposed is that:


   Currently, the current FA draft only defines that the algorithm identifier is included as part of a  Prefix-SID advertisement,that maybe not satisfy some scenarios where multiple algorithm share the same link resource.  


    For example, an SR-TE policy may be instantiated within specific Flex-algo plane, i.e.,the SID list requires to include algorithm related SIDs.  An algorithm-unware Adjacency-SID included in the SID list can just steer the packet towards the link, but can not apply different QoS policy for different algorithm.         


     Another example is that the TI-LFA backup path computed in Flex-algo plane may also contain an algorithm-unware Adjacency-SID, which maybe also used in other SR-TE instance that carries other service.

    This document complement that the algorithm identifier can be also  included as part of an Adjacency-SID advertisement for SR-MPLS.






Best Regards,


Ran