I support adoption of this draft.
I believe that there are use cases for algorithm specific adjacency-sids -
primarily (and non-controversially) to provide algorithm specific repair paths.
As others have commented, other use cases mentioned in this draft involve
introducing significant new
Hi, All:
Again, I support part of this draft be adopted.
The deployment of Flex-Algo should be separated from the SR-TE Policy. Then
the use-case 1, 3 in section 3 should be pulled out, this can keep the
original design principle of Flex-Algo.
Adjacency-SID will only be included in the data
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
Title : Flooding Topology Minimum Degree Algorithm
Authors : Huaimo Chen
Mehmet Toy
Hi:
I don't support the adoption of this document.Reserve different queue
resources
for different algorithms is not a existing feature of Flexalgo, I don't think
it's appropriate to include it in this document.
if needed it should be discussed separately from the per flexalgo adj sid
Bruno,
On 01/06/2021 10:55, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Hi all,
Better safe than sorry, I guess.
FYI, in -08 (a year ago) draft introduced one single iteration of the FA acronym:
"The scope of the FA computation is an area"
I'll remove it, I've never intended to use FA for flex-algo
Hi all,
Better safe than sorry, I guess.
FYI, in -08 (a year ago) draft introduced one single iteration of the FA
acronym: "The scope of the FA computation is an area"
Do we really want to create that FA acronym for Flex Algo?
FA has already been used for Forwarding Adjacency (e.g., [1])
