Hi all, We presented https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr on IDR's session last week. This document defines two kinds of new Segment Sub-TLVs to carry SID related algorithm when delivering SR Policy via BGP. One is for SR-MPLS adjacency with algorithm, another kind is defined for carrying the algo along with the SR-MPLS or SRv6 SID value.
While we believe that the former kind is necessary, considering draft-ietf-lsr-algorithm-related-adjacency-sid complements that in scenarios where multiple algorithm share the same link resource, the algorithm can be also included as part of an Adj-SID advertisement for SR-MPLS. We'd like to request the WG's opinion especially about the delivering SR-MPLS or SRv6 SID value with optional algorithm. (Thanks for Ketan's suggestion about this.) Segment Sub-TLVs carrying SID value with optional algorithm are defined in this draft because we think it may benefit the scenarios below: Scenario 1: For verification purposes. The headend can check if the SID value and the related algorithm received can be found in its SR-DB if requested to do so. Scenario 2: The headend may not know about the SID-related algorithm especially in the inter-domain scenario. Providing the algorithm info benefits troubleshooting and network management. Any comments and suggestions are welcome. Thanks, Yao _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
