IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Lsr] A question about draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com> Wed, 03 June 2020 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <huzhibo@huawei.com>
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 621233A1076; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 05:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 7ocvJnrjBu0p; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 05:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 E61C23A0FD5; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 05:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml727-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1067221810530462FC69; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:06:54 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml727-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.78) by lhreml727-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:06:51 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.214) by lhreml727-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:06:50 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.9.92]) by DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.214]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:06:45 +0800
From: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>
To: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: A question about draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo
Thread-Index: AdY5nzy1vCsc9nVaTnicFne+9P6tmg==
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 12:06:45 +0000
Message-ID: <06CF729DA0D6854E8C1E5121AC3330DFAF670C89@dggemm509-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.202.126]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_06CF729DA0D6854E8C1E5121AC3330DFAF670C89dggemm509mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/g-wIw-4MV0nrGu3HREaMIuAWSXw>
Subject: [Lsr] A question about draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo
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, 03 Jun 2020 12:06:57 -0000

Hi Peter:

I noticed that draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-07 adds exclude SRLG TLV. SRLG defines a group of risk-sharing link groups. It is generally used to prevent the primary and standby paths from passing the same risk-sharing link group .I don't know why a group of SRLG links should be excluded from the FlexAlgo calculation. What is its usecase?

Thanks

Zhibo Hu

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email