Huzhibo <huzhibo=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> writes:
Hi 6man and LSR:
This email was only sent to LSR. Thanks, Chris.
We submitted a draft of the DataPlane extension Topo ID: https:// tools.ietf.org/id/draft-li-6man-topology-id-00.txt https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hu-lsr-igp-ca-flex-algorithm-00.txt This draft sloves the following problem: MT And Flexalgo Shared Addresses Space. RFC5120 defines if the topologies are quality of Service (QoS) partitioned, then the Differentiated Services CodePoint (DSCP) bits in the IP packet header can be utilized to make the decision. However, we now apply MT and Flexalgo to other scenarios, such as slicing, where QoS cannot be used to differentiate topologies. This document introduces a dedicated data plane ID to distinguish between different topologies. In this way, different topologies (MT or Flexalgo) can reuse the same address space, simplifying multi-topology deployment and improving multi-topology performance. Any comments and question are welcome. In addition, from the carrier's perspective, does deploying an independent address space on each plane bring complexity? Thanks Zhibo Hu _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
