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

Hi Robin,

On 28/05/2021 13:08, Lizhenbin wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I do not support the adoption. I am concerned that we are in the danger of re-inventing IGP multi-topology with Flex-Algo. I do not think it is necessary. If we have the requirements, we can either directly use the multi-topology or extend Flex-Algo without change its principle.

we have absolutely no intention to make flex-algo closer to multi-topology.

The problem we are trying to address with this draft is the protection 
of the Ajd-SID which follows the constraint of the specific flex-algo.

SR policies could use algo specific prefix SIDs, but there is no 
algo-specific Adj-sid. As a result the backup path for the Adj-SID would 
always use an algo 0 path, something that may not be desirable for 
policies that suppose to follow flex-algo paths.

thanks,
Peter

> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Zhenbin (Robin)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 
> 