Hi,
The authors have conferred and we would like to propose the following changes: - The semantics of the Inside Node TLV will be folded into the Area Proxy TLV. - The Area Proxy TLV will have its scope expanded to include pseudonodes. - No change to the Area Segment SID TLV encoding. Comments? Especially from our Designated Experts? Regards, Sarah, Vivek, Gyan, and Tony > On Jun 25, 2020, at 12:04 PM, tony...@tony.li wrote: > > > Hi Hannes, > > Thanks for your comments. We will propose an alternate encoding. > > Tony > > >> On Jun 25, 2020, at 10:47 AM, Hannes Gredler <han...@gredler.at >> <mailto:han...@gredler.at>> wrote: >> >> Hi Tony, >> >> I do share Les’ concerns on burning top-level 8-bit code point space at this >> point. >> >> At this point it is not me to judge wether CAP TLV or GENAPP TLV or >> something else should be a more appropriate place. >> Please let's have a WG discussion on this. >> >> Thanks, >> >> /hannes >> >>> On 21.06.2020, at 18:50, tony...@tony.li <mailto:tony...@tony.li> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Les, >>> >>>> We don’t have to resolve this now. >>>> One of my motivations for sending this was related to Early Allocation of >>>> code points. Since you have already asked once, I am assuming that if WG >>>> adoption is achieved it will be swiftly followed by an early allocation >>>> request – and as one of the Designated Experts I wanted to share my >>>> concerns sooner rather than later. >>> >>> >>> I appreciate that. Do others share Les’ perspective on the relative >>> tradeoffs? Especially our other Desginated Experts? >>> >>> >>>> Would this argue for advertising “this is a boundary circuit” in >>>> pseudo-node LSPs for boundary circuits rather than advertising “inside” on >>>> all inside pseudo-nodes? >>>> >>>> You could do it that way. It inverts the semantics and inverts the >>>> deployment. Logically, it should have the same effect. However, it then >>>> is seen by outside nodes. Since they need not support Area Proxy, this >>>> seemed like a riskier approach, thus we opted for marking inside >>>> pseudonodes. >>>> >>>> [Les:] My point was largely motivated by the statement in the draft: >>>> >>>> “Area Proxy Boundary multi-access circuits (i.e. Ethernets in LAN >>>> mode) with multiple Inside Edge Routers on them are not supported.” >>>> >>>> So it seems advantageous to be able to prevent this from happening – which >>>> requires some signaling on the circuit in question. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think that the case that you’re concerned about is already easily >>> detected. Recall that an Inside Edge router will generate IIH’s onto a >>> boundary circuit using the Proxy system ID. Thus, if an Inside Edge router >>> receives an IIH with a source address of it’s own proxy system id, then it >>> has encountered this issue. >>> >>> Tony >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lsr mailing list >>> Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr> >> >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
