Ketan, thank you for clarification.
Cheers! Wang Weibin From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com> Sent: 2020年5月9日 14:52 To: Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <weibin.w...@nokia-sbell.com>; lsr@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo Hi Wang, You are correct. Though I wouldn’t call it a goal but rather a benefit/advantage �C same applies to SR-MPLS where the label stack can be reduced. Thanks, Ketan From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) Sent: 08 May 2020 19:07 To: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo Hi authors: After reading through this draft lsr-flex-algo, I want to know whether there is a potential goal of this draft to reduce the SRH size with enabling flex-algo with admin group in SRv6 deployment, because without flex-algo we have to have a big SRH size when the SRH include more SRv6 SIDs, if we enable flex-algo under special topology and link constraint condition, in theory we can even construct a end to end SR path/tunnel without SRH, but it still meet TE requirement. So my question is whether the flex-algo can be used as tool to reduce SRH size? Cheers ! WANG Weibin
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
