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

peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Fri, 12 March 2021 02:49 UTC

Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@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 27D333A1676 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:49:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_NONELEMENT_30_40=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 YVmhAUB7qMGo for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:49:34 -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 A26A03A1679 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:49:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 4AF7E57B5779A6562068; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 10:49:29 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.201]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 12C2nOkN064555; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 10:49:24 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 10:49:23 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 10:49:23 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af9604ad6b30868405c
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202103121049238996237@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <ec489872-0621-835b-cb20-63b914819d59@cisco.com>
References: 202103111651528716447@zte.com.cn, ec489872-0621-835b-cb20-63b914819d59@cisco.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
To: <ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: <chen.ran@zte.com.cn>, <tonysietf@gmail.com>, <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 12C2nOkN064555
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/wN3o651rbc3P1y1Xxl_w6kb3HHE>
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 02:49:38 -0000

Hi Peter,






Agree, that is an important use case. We will add it to the next version.






Regards,


PSF










原始邮件



发件人:PeterPsenak
收件人:陈然00080434;tonysietf@gmail.com;
抄送人:lsr@ietf.org;
日 期 :2021年03月11日 17:57
主 题 :Re: [Lsr] draft-draft-peng-lsr-algorithm-related-adjacency-sid


Hi Ran, Tony,

I believe the primary use case for algorithm specific adj-SID is for the 
protected Adj-SID. The backup path of such Adj-SID follows the algo 
specific constraints.

thanks,
Peter




On 11/03/2021 09:51, chen.ran@zte.com.cn wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr