Hi all,
I would like to clarify that, from my POV, my technical concerns about
draft-schmutzer-pce-sr-cs-routing-policies<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy-02>
presented in my email dated
11-Jul-22<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ctrAx6JFaNwLhMCQB5QUdBCR7B8/>
fully apply to this draft.
Specifically, the authors do not define any mechanisms that would prevent
possible usage of unprotected Adj-SIDs used in the configuration of the
candidate paths of CR-CS policies from being also used by such well-known and
widely deployed mechanisms as TI-LFA and Segment Routing Microloop Avoidance.
As a consequence, the "strict BW guarantees" that are expected of SR-CS
policies would be violated every time one of these mechanisms would result in
some "regular" traffic being sent via the paths defined by such mechanisms.
Even if such mechanisms were defined in a future version of
draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy, a retrofit of existing implementations of
TI-LFA and/or SR Microloop Avoidance would be required.
I understand the motivation for CR-SC Policies, but I strongly suspect that SR
cannot be used as a replacement for MPLS-TP when it comes to BW guarantees.
Regards,
Sasha
Office: +972-39266302
Cell: +972-549266302
Email: alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com
Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of
Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or
proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure,
reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
