Shraddha,
the problem is that the node that is advertising the node-sid can not
advertise any data regarding the protection of such prefix, because the
prefix is locally attached.
thanks,
Peter
On 12/29/14 09:15 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
Peter,
If there is a service which has to use un-protected path and while building
such a path if the node-sids
Need to be used (one reason could be label stack compression) , then there has
to be unprotected node-sid that
this service can make use of.
Prefix -sids could also be used to represent different service endpoints which
makes it even more relevant to have
A means of representing unprotected paths.
Would be good to hear from others on this, especially operators.
Rgds
Shraddha
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:35 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde; [email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Shraddha,
node-SID is advertised by the router for the prefix that is directly attached
to it. Protection for such local prefix does not mean much.
thanks,
Peter
On 12/24/14 11:57 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
Authors,
We have a "backup flag" in adjacency sid to indicate whether the label
is protected or not.
Similarly. I think we need a flag in prefix-sid as well to indicate
whether the node-sid is to be protected or not.
Any thoughts on this?
Rgds
Shraddha
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
.
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
