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

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Fri, 28 May 2021 03:39 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@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 388CF3A1462 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 May 2021 20:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 xWYZNG-zZUo1 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 May 2021 20:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FB2B3A145D for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 May 2021 20:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml734-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Frqyw1t51z6V04p for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 May 2021 11:33:28 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeme751-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.97) by fraeml734-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.215) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Fri, 28 May 2021 05:39:50 +0200
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.100) by dggeme751-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Fri, 28 May 2021 11:39:48 +0800
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) by dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Fri, 28 May 2021 11:39:48 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency SID Advertisement"
Thread-Index: AQHXUnIbKtth+1IMrk6gmc5i1sGGmqr4OmBw
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 03:39:48 +0000
Message-ID: <039fea6a52d44688990a6ebc9bef0472@huawei.com>
References: <m2wnrlcitn.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org>
In-Reply-To: <m2wnrlcitn.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.143]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/mp1zpaBHeXvyko9e90erE8AA12A>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Call for "Algorithm Related IGP-Adjacency SID Advertisement"
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: Fri, 28 May 2021 03:39:59 -0000

Hi,

I don't support the adoption of this document. 

It seems this document aims to introduce per Flex-Algo Adj-SID to SR-MPLS, its typical use case is to provide protection path with Flex-Algo constraints for Adj-SID of a particular Flex-Algo, which is described in the case 3 of section 3. 

However, section 3 and section 5 shows that it also aims to introduce further changes to the usage and operation of Flex-Algo, which is to provide resource reservation based on Flex-Algo. IMO these changes to Flex-Algo deserves further discussion and is not only related to the per Flex-Algo Adj-SID extension.

Here are some comments about this change to Flex-Algo:

1. Flex-Algo defines the constraints for path computation in a distributed manner, it is not for resource reservation. 

2. Reserving resources for each Flex-Algo on a link does not make sense. The correlation between Flex-Algo and the network links is based on administrative groups (color), and the color of the link may or may not be included in the Flex-Algo definition. To follow the color based link correlation, a more practical approach would be to use Flex-Algo with L2 bundle as defined in draft-zhu-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-flexalgo, which uses color to correlate the L3 link and the L2 member link to a Flex-Algo, this avoids the extension for per-FlexAlgo resource reservation. 

3. The Flex-Algo link TE attributes are advertised using ASLA, the TE attributes are shared by all Flex-Algos which include the link according to the FAD, and based on previous discussion, it seems there is no intention to introduce per Flex-Algo ID link attributes.

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 4:57 AM
> 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