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

Hi Les,

Thanks for your comments.
Please see inline [PSF].

Regards,
PSF

------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人：LesGinsberg(ginsberg)
收件人：Christian Hopps;lsr@ietf.org;
日 期 ：2021年06月02日 13:04
主 题 ：Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency SID Advertisement"
I support adoption of this draft.
I believe that there are use cases for algorithm specific adjacency-sids - primarily (and non-controversially) to provide algorithm specific repair paths.
As others have commented, other use cases mentioned in this draft involve introducing significant new functionality which has not been discussed or accepted by the WG (e.g., resource allocation). This topic deserves to be reviewed by the WG on its own merit in a separate draft.

[PSF] OK. Indeed, we should agree on use-case 2/3, because an adjacency-sid of TI-LFA path need further adjacency backup path for protection. And, put aside resource reservation, based on use-case 2, we can also do more things, for example, statistics of traffic of different algorithms on the same link.

This draft should confine itself to defining the new advertisements required to support algorithm specific adjacency-sids and discussing the repair path use case.
I would also like to see some discussion of deployment considerations including:
a)When to allocate/advertise algorithm specific adjacency-sids vs when to continue to use algorithm independent adjacency sids.
b)Strict-SID algo-sids are not useful
c)Use case should drive the type(s) of algorithm specific adjacency-sids allocated/advertised. For example,  if primary use case is for algorithm specific repair paths, then only sids with B flag set ("eligible for protection") are required.

[PSF] Thanks for these  constructive suggestions. We will improve it in later versions. : )

Simply allocating algorithm specific adjacency SIDs for all supported algorithms all the time is a recipe for bloating the protocol link advertisements unnecessarily.

[PSF] OK, we will give the recommended option.

Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 1:57 PM
> 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
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr