Hi Zhenqiang Li,

Thanks for you review and sharing your comments. Please check inline below.

From: li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com <li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com>
Sent: 05 August 2020 14:03
To: spring@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy 
<draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-pol...@ietf.org>
Subject: Comments on SR policy

Dear authors and all,

Please consider the following comments.
1. Do you think it is ok to add one more segment type for the segment list to 
incorporate the segment for Layer 2 bundle members? Please refer to rfc8668.
[KT] The Segment Type E covers Layer 2 Bundle Members : 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-08#section-4

         This type can also be
         used to indicate indirection into a layer 2 interface (i.e.
         without IP address) like a representation of an optical
         transport path or a layer 2 Ethernet port or circuit at the
         specified node.


2. For per flow steering to a policy, why do we limit the array index to 0 to 
7?  I think this is implementation specific and the number of paths in an array 
depends on the application scenario. I am not sure whether or not 8 paths is 
enough for all scenarios.

[KT] The draft does not limit the Forwarding Classes to 8. The value 8 is more 
of an example and comes from Traffic Class [RFC5462] and the IP Precedence 
portion of DSCP [RFC2474]. The section starts with "Let us assume" and there is 
also the following text in the same section:



   The array index values (e.g. 0, 1 and 2) and the notion of

   forwarding-class are implementation specific and only meant to

   describe the desired behavior.  The same can be realized by other

   mechanisms.



3. For protection in section 9.1, it is better to add some text like "the local 
protection may not satisfy the SLA requirements or the path constrains for the 
policy" when an SR Policy is built on the basis of TI-LFA protected IGP 
segments.
[KT] Sure. We can add this clarification in the next update.

Thanks,
Ketan

Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
________________________________
li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com<mailto:li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to