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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 4:57 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
