Flex algo is usually mentioned in the context of SR-TE to help reduced SRH size to circumvent MSD issues for both SRV6 and SR-MPLS, however can the 0-127 flex algo extensions since it’s an IGP extension used in any pure IP network independent of SR flavors SR-MPLS or SRv6.
Also can flex algo be used in conjunction with RSVP-TE or PPR(preferred path routing). Kind regards Gyan On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 9:25 PM Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) < weibin.w...@nokia-sbell.com> wrote: > Jeff, I see what you said, thank you for sharing information; > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > Wang Weibin > > > > *From:* Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* 2020年5月10日 3:24 > *To:* Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) <weibin.w...@nokia-sbell.com> > *Cc:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo > > > > Weibin, > > > > One could have an algo with MSD/ERLD as optimizations constrains, would be > quite similar to colored links. Note - ERLD has implemented node > capabilities only, so all links on a node will have to be pruned. > > The tradeoffs are - having centralized controller with global view > computing a path that meets the constraints(classical BGP-LS + PCEP > scenario) vs building a dynamic topology of connected nodes that meet a set > of constrains, in first case, change in topology/capabilities would cause > path recalculation/reoptimization on the PCE while in the second - IGP > would recompute the topology locally. > > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > > On May 9, 2020, at 01:27, Wang, Weibin (NSB - CN/Shanghai) < > weibin.w...@nokia-sbell.com> wrote: > > > > 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 – same applies to SR-MPLS where the label stack can be > reduced. > > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > *From:* Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Wang, Weibin (NSB - > CN/Shanghai) > *Sent:* 08 May 2020 19:07 > *To:* 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > -- Gyan Mishra Network Engineering & Technology Verizon Silver Spring, MD 20904 Phone: 301 502-1347 Email: gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
