Ok so you are saying it is still perfectly fine to flood domain wide per node MSDs and completely ground breaking to flood per the very same amount of nodes one loopback prefix ... Interesting.
Thx. R. On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:52 AM Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote: > Robert, > > On 29/08/2023 02:23, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > > Well takeMSDs ... I would think remote PE may find useful to know them > > (ie. what is the capability of egress PE). Why those would not be needed > > outside of an area I do not get. > > MSDs are advertise per node or per link, nothing to do with prefixes and > summarization. > > thanks, > Peter > > > > > Thx, > > R. > > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 10:38 AM Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com > > <mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote: > > > > Robert, > > > > On 28/08/2023 14:19, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > Daniel, > > > > > > > [DV] No, there’s no need to leak and advertise > > > > > > You mean there is no need for RFC9352 in your network. If so - > great. > > > > > > I was however asking the question: if network needs to advertise > > any of > > > the information defined in RFC9352 would it still benefit from > UPA ? > > > > ISIS SIDs are not needed outside of its area. Service SIDs are > > advertised by BGP. > > > > thanks, > > Peter > > > > > > Thx, > > > R. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 11:05 PM Voyer, Daniel > > <daniel.vo...@bell.ca <mailto:daniel.vo...@bell.ca> > > > <mailto:daniel.vo...@bell.ca <mailto:daniel.vo...@bell.ca>>> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Robert, inlines____ > > > > > > __ __ > > > > > > __ __ > > > > > > *From: *Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org > > <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org> <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org > > <mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>>> on > > > behalf of Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net > > <mailto:rob...@raszuk.net> <mailto:rob...@raszuk.net > > <mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>> > > > *Date: *Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:00 PM > > > *To: *"Hassan, Shehzad" > > <shehzad.hassan=40bell...@dmarc.ietf.org > > <mailto:40bell...@dmarc.ietf.org> > > > <mailto:40bell...@dmarc.ietf.org > > <mailto:40bell...@dmarc.ietf.org>>>, Daniel Bernier > > > <daniel.bern...@bell.ca <mailto:daniel.bern...@bell.ca> > > <mailto:daniel.bern...@bell.ca <mailto:daniel.bern...@bell.ca>>> > > > *Cc: *lsr <lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> > > <mailto:lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>>, > > > "draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org > > <mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org> > > > <mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org > > <mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org>>" > > > <draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org > > <mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org> > > > <mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org > > <mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org>>> > > > *Subject: *[EXT]Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP > > Unreachable > > > Prefix Announcement" - > > > draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft > > name)____ > > > > > > __ __ > > > > > > Hi Shehzad & Daniel,____ > > > > > > ____ > > > > > > I support this work as it is key for summarization in an > > > SRv6/IPv6 network.____ > > > > > > __ __ > > > > > > Are you not going to advertise and leak across your IGP > > domain any > > > of the SRv6 extensions as described in > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9352/ > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9352/> > > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9352/ > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9352/>> for the PEs ? ____ > > > > > > [DV] No, there’s no need to leak and advertise. For an SRv6 > > network, > > > we are summarizing locators and loopback (should be derived > from > > > locator 0). This makes the routing domain “opaque”.____ > > > > > > __ __ > > > > > > And if you do, is there still some use case for UPA ? ____ > > > > > > __ __ > > > > > > Perhaps I am missing something but how would those extensions > > > survive summarization ? ____ > > > > > > __ __ > > > > > > __ __ > > > > > > Thx, > > > Robert____ > > > > > > Cheers,____ > > > > > > Dan____ > > > > > > __ __ > > > > > > > On Aug 23, 2023, at 4:07 PM, Acee Lindem > > <acee.i...@gmail.com <mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com> > > > <mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com > > <mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > LSR Working Group, > > > > > > > > This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP > > > Unreachable Prefix Announcement” - > > > draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04. > > > > Please indicate your support or objection on this list > > prior > > > to September 7th, 2023. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Acee > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > External Email: Please use caution when opening links > and > > > attachments / Courriel externe: Soyez prudent avec les > > liens et > > > documents joints > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Lsr mailing list > > > Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org > > <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr> > > > <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
