On April 22, 2024 at 2:46:00 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
Jie:
Hi!
...
> [Jie] In my understanding, both documents propose enhancements to SR to solve
> the requirements for resource guarantee in SR networks.
>
> The essential is that SR SIDs can be used to indicate not only the function
> (or behavior) to be performed, but also to indicate the set of resources used
> to perform the function (or behavior). Thus these SIDs are called
> resource-aware SIDs. From this perspective, it is true that
> draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments is the framework for introducing
> resource-awareness to SR.
>
> As for the solutions for resource-guaranteed SR Policy, there can be
> different approaches to indicate the SIDs are resource-aware:
>
> The first approach is as described in
> draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments, the SR-MPLS SIDs or SRv6 locators
> are associated with a set of network resources, this allows SR SIDs with all
> existing types/behaviors be associated with specific set of network resources
> for packet processing. Thus this draft provides a general solution for
> resource-aware SIDs, which can apply to SR Policies with explicit or loose
> paths, SR Flex-Algo, SR Multi-topology, etc.
>
> The second approach is as described in
> draft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee for SRv6, a SRv6 new
> behavior is defined as a variant of End.X, which indicates “End.X with
> specific set of link resource”(maybe the behavior could be renamed as
> End.XNRP?) This approach applies to SRv6 Policies built with End.X SIDs only.
>
> Thus in my view draft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee aligns with
> the resource-aware SR framework as specified in
> draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments, while it focuses on a specific use
> case: enhancements to SRv6 Policy explicit paths for resource guarantee, and
> provides an optional extension for that use case.
You seem to be saying that each approach "aligns with the
resource-aware SR framework as specified in
draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments", even if the approach in
draft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee is not addressed in
draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments. Is that your point?
I'm confused because you also say that the solution in
draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments can apply to any scenario
("general solution for resource-aware SIDs, which can apply to SR
Policies with explicit or loose paths, SR Flex-Algo, SR
Multi-topology, etc."), which I assume includes the use case in
draft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee. Is that correct?
If so, why is an approach that "applies to SRv6 Policies built with
End.X SIDs only" needed?
Thanks!
Alvaro.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
