Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Jimmy, On 11/12/2020 09:17, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: Hi Peter, -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 9:22 PM To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Peter, > -Original Message- > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 9:22 PM > To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Acee Lindem (acee) > ; lsr > Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms > (Flex-Algorithm) > In IP Networks" -

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Peter: Following this approach, IP and SR Flex-Algo can also be distinguished by using different FA IDs, thus there is no need to treat them as separate applications, and the existing SR FAD TLV can be reused? My suggestion is to have a clear and consistent rule in FA participation, either

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Jie, > But if node A sends SRv6 packets with node C's SRv6 SID in FA 128 as the > destination address, when the packet arrives at E, it will be dropped, > because node E does not have the forwarding entry for C's SRv6 SID in FA > 128. * How can E be on the SRv6 SID list if it did not

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi peter: As you said, IGP does not distinguish between IP and SR when calculating Algo 0. Why does Flexalgo distinguish between IP and SR Flexalgo? I think you're trying to explain these differences in a ambivalent way. Thanks Zhibo -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi peter: If you think that IP and SR are two applications, which application-specific link attributes should IP flexalgo use? Thanks Zhibo -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 6:11 PM To: Huzhibo ; Dongjie (Jimmy) ;

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Zhibo, On 11/12/2020 10:39, Huzhibo wrote: Hi Peter: Following this approach, IP and SR Flex-Algo can also be distinguished by using different FA IDs, thus there is no need to treat them as separate applications, and the existing SR FAD TLV can be reused? > My suggestion is to have a clear and

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Hi Robert, Please see inline: From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 5:16 PM To: Dongjie (Jimmy) Cc: Peter Psenak ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" -

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Zhibo, On 11/12/2020 11:06, Huzhibo wrote: Hi peter: As you said, IGP does not distinguish between IP and SR when calculating Algo 0. Why does Flexalgo distinguish between IP and SR Flexalgo? I think you're trying to explain these differences in a ambivalent way. because FA has the

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Zhibo, Hi peter: If you think that IP and SR are two applications, which application-specific link attributes should IP flexalgo use? there are two sets: a) applications that are using the flex-algo - e.g. SR, IP. These apps are advertising participation in FA. b) application

Re: [Lsr] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo

Hey Eric, The Routing Directorate review is marked completed (giving that the comments were Nits): https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo/reviewrequest/13840/ We are assuming that you are happy with Peter's responses to your comments. Thanks again for your review. Thanks,