Authors, Few comments below.
1. Abstract TI-LFA backup path computation is always to the destination so it is less likely that a Node that cannot be bypassed gets skipped due to TI-LFA. The node that must be visited might get skipped due to node protection procedures that require Next label lookup. I suggest to update the abstract as below " Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate Fast Re-route (TI-LFA) aims at providing protection of node and adjacency segments within the Segment Routing (SR) framework. A key aspect of TI-LFA is the FRR path selection approach establishing protection over the expected post-convergence paths from the point of local repair.Node protection procedures for adjacency SIDs and immediate nexthop prefix-sids require the next label lookup bypassing the immediate node. The SIDs in the label stack may represent service instructions which Should not be bypassed. This draft describes a mechanism to advertise SIDs that cannot be bypassed" 2.Introduction "traffic engineer" Change to Traffic Engineering" 3.Overview of Enhanced TI-LFA When the SR-TE path is being built, the node-sids/service sids Used to build the path MUST use SIDs with no-bypass flag set. The TI-LFA repair-list building procedure need not change. It will continue to use SIDs with N bit set. When the SR-Te label stack is built with "no bypass" SIDs, The PLR will drop the traffic and not do any node protection procedure for the The "no-bypass" SIDs 4. Do we really need a "no bypass" flag for adj-sids? We have the B flag which can be used 5. no-bypass flag in SRH It is not clear why this is require. The NB flag in SRV6 SIDs isn't good enough? Also the NB flag is generally applicable to a specific SID And should not be a global packet level flag. Rgds Shraddha Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
